Water Supply: UN Convention

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made towards acceding to the United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (UN watercourse convention), which seeks to alleviate tensions between nations with shared water resources.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the Government have no immediate plans to accede to the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Only 16 countries have ratified the convention. With 35 countries required, there is little prospect of the convention entering into force. Despite that, its principles are widely applied. DfID supports water-sharing processes in the Middle East and Africa, and does not consider accession necessary for those to be effective.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, although it is disappointing. Given the warnings about the impact of climate change on fresh water resources, and given the millennium development goal that hopes to reduce by half the number of people without access to fresh water, will the United Kingdom ensure at the Bali conference that priority is given to the allocation of funding for the management of fresh water resources?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an important point, and can be assured that in Bali we will draw the attention of all delegations to the risk that Africa and poor countries elsewhere are confronted with. Africa is the region that is most vulnerable to climate change. It is projected that by 2020 between 75 million and 250 million people will be exposed to an increase in water stress due to climate change, and that agricultural productivity will have been severely compromised by at least a 10 per cent decline in rainfall. Therefore we will make the point strongly at Bali, although it is not a pledging conference so we may have to find other forums to secure more resources to redress the matter.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend regret that although the Labour Government co-sponsored the convention 10 years ago we have not been able to accede to it? Can he tell us anything about further consultation on the desirability of accession by any other government department?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my noble friend is right that the convention seemed extremely important at the time. The UK did not accede to it because of difficulties around the waters of Northern Ireland versus the Republic, which have subsequently been well resolved through EU arrangements. That means that we have no direct waterways of our own to be affected. However, that does not prevent us using the principles of the convention in parts of the world such as the Nile basin, where we are providing assistance to countries that share common water fronts.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, although it is good to know that we support practical approaches to transboundary co-operation on the equitable sharing of water resources in the Middle East and Africa, why do we adopt a different approach in Mesopotamia, where Ministers say that it is for Iraq, Turkey and Syria to reach agreement on the sharing of their water resources? Would it not be a good idea to adopt the same practical approaches, particularly bearing in mind that, since dams have been built on the Euphrates in Turkey, the quantity of water flowing into Iraq has decreased by 50 per cent?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. However, even in the case of the Nile basin, and other areas where we have successfully supported arrangements, such approaches are arrived at between the countries that share those common water tables. Again, we would be extremely open to supporting an agreement between those three countries. Given the state of political relations there, however, we will first need to see a change in bilateral relationships between the three countries. An outcome of that would be a chance to work on their common water problems.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, what is the status of agreement or disagreement about the waters of the River Jordan and such other waters as there may be nearby? It used to be a serious problem between Israel and the Palestinians. Is that still the case?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, it is still the case, and the noble Lord will not be surprised that it is a victim of the same kind of political difficulties referred to in the previous question. Water will become the most valuable resource in the shortest supply in this century, but it is hard to resolve these issues when countries are not living peacefully as good neighbours. Good neighbourliness is a precondition of settling disputed water.

Prisons: Population

Baroness Stern: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What projections they have made of the anticipated size of the prison population in England and Wales in 2010.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the latest prison population projections were published on 31 August 2007. They cover the period from June 2007 to June 2014 and present three possible future scenarios: low, medium and high. The projections for June 2010 range from 87,500 on the low scenario to 93,000 on the high scenario.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that depressing reply. He will surely be as sad as I am that, two weeks ago, a 15 year-old boy who had been sent to prison for one and a half months for breaking the terms of his supervision order hanged himself in his cell. How many people like that boy—mentally ill and vulnerable people and those with learning difficulties—will be among the 90,000 or so whom the noble Lord has told us he expects to be locking up in three years' time? Why have the Government so far found it impossible to devise a policy to get people like that out of prison and into a place where they would get the help that they need with their problems?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course I cannot answer the precise question about projections, because nobody could. However, the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Carter will certainly be helpful in making a proper assessment in the future. Of course all deaths in custody are very much regretted and the specific case that the noble Baroness mentions will clearly have to be fully investigated. Alongside the announcement of the outcome of the Carter review, we announced that my noble friend Lord Bradley is to lead a short review looking specifically at prisoners with mental health issues. That is a joint review with the Department of Health, which I hope will offer a constructive way forward.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the Minster think that a prisoner who has been stacked in one of the Titan warehouses of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for a number of years is less likely to reoffend when he is finally turfed out upon the public?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord uses rather pejorative terms for my noble friend's proposals. It is worth making the point about the Titan prisons that, as my noble friend pointed out, the investment in new facilities will allow a much better foundation for the kind of rehabilitative programmes that the noble Lord and I wish to see. Of course, we will look at that carefully in taking forward these proposals.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in relation to population, we imprison more people than virtually any other European country and does he therefore think that British people are more criminal than other European people?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in comparison with other European countries that is certainly so, although there are other countries, including the US, where there is a higher prison population. The trends show that in many countries, whatever their baseline, there has been an increase in prison population. One reason why there is a higher prison population is that more offenders are being brought to justice. There is greater focus on the enforcement of sentences in this country and a greater emphasis on public protection. Crime is coming down. The Government have no need to apologise for that.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, many of us believe that at present the biggest prisons cause the biggest problems. Do the Government really believe that the Titan prisons, which are now under discussion, are the solution? I dare to cast doubt on this course of action because on the Isle of Wight there are three prisons—Parkhurst, Albany and Camp Hill—that are adjacent to each other yet serve different and distinct categories of inmates and can do so more effectively because they are separate and not part of one big institution.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to the right reverend Prelate. He almost makes the case for the Titan prisons. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that by going for these very large sites and new build there is every opportunity to ensure that conditions are as effective as possible and that good design can lead to good security and good rehabilitative procedures. Within such a site it would be possible, for instance, to have five separate units of 500 each, where one would have the advantage of managing smaller units. Obviously, we shall debate this in the months ahead, but I hope that noble Lords will not simply dismiss Titans without looking at what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, actually said.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister give his projection of the number of children who will be in custody in the future along the lines that he gave before? Does he regret the fact that we in this country place in our secure estate so many more children than our neighbours do? Will he pay tribute to the social workers, the foster carers and the residential childcare workers who do so much to keep children who have been hurt in their previous experience from entering custody? Does he recognise that we very much need to raise their status if we are to prevent more children who have been harmed in the past from ending up in custody? That is not to abnegate the responsibility for other children, but we must admit that many of our children are not given the assistance that they need to stay out of custody.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course we must do everything to prevent children from going into custody and, when they are in custody, to ensure that programmes are geared to make sure that they do not reoffend in the future. However, there will always be a need for some custodial settings. Of course I pay tribute to social workers and probation officers, but unlike many noble Lords I also pay tribute to the staff working in custodial settings, who have a very challenging job to do.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Lord Elton: My Lords—

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, let us hear from the Conservative Benches.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I hesitate to trespass on this. Can the Minister confirm that it is now planned to start weekend working in prisons on a Friday afternoon, producing a four-and-a-half-day week? What will the effect be on time out of cell for prisoners over the week as a whole? What will that be when the numbers rise to the predicted figures that he has given us and what was it at the beginning of this century?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that proposal was made as part of discussions in the Prison Service about the implications for the future spending round review. As I understand it, no decision has been made. The idea was to focus more activity around those four and a half days. On the issue of unlocking, my understanding is that the average number of hours is 10.1 compared with 9.6 in 2001-02.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords—

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords—

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have heard twice from the Cross-Benchers, so I think that it is the turn of my noble friend.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while I fully understand the concern over custodial sentences, can my noble friend answer these two points? First, if an alternative to custodial sentencing is implemented for these people, to what extent are the public protected? Secondly, if such an alternative method is implemented, to what greater extent will those people be rehabilitated?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Those are fair points, my Lords. We must of course have prison places for the most dangerous offenders, but the Government have also emphasised the importance of community sentences, which are not a soft option; they are very much a tough option. Overall, we have seen proven reoffending reduce by 5.8 per cent between 2000 and 2004. We have also seen a huge increase in the education and health programmes, which, again, I think noble Lords underestimate.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, not only do we incarcerate—

Noble Lords: Next Question!

Energy: Efficiency

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will be taking new initiatives to stimulate energy saving.

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, Defra and organisations such as the Energy Saving Trust already run a range of information programmes designed to encourage energy saving, and to raise awareness of the actions that individuals can take to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. The carbon reduction commitment is a new, mandatory emissions-trading scheme for large, non-energy intensive businesses and public sector organisations. It is expected to begin in January 2010 and will deliver emissions savings of just over 1 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and note with interest what he said. However, does he not agree that there is much complexity about energy-saving measures, especially in the housing sector, which is among the most wasteful in energy usage? Would the impact not be greater if there was one over-riding and major fiscal incentive to reward greater energy savings in household usage, based on certified improvements by using the recently introduced energy performance certificates? Furthermore, should not much more emphasis be given to promoting microgeneration—including the setting of targets—in view of its much greater efficiency compared with central power generation? I declare an interest in microgeneration as patron of the Micropower Council.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree that much more could be done. On the use of equipment in households, for example, only last week Defra launched a consultation on improving the energy efficiency of consumer electronics—such as refrigeration, televisions, set-top boxes and air conditioning units—to try and get voluntary approval from the industry on changes in practice, as we did with light bulbs.
	People will change their behaviour. I understand that 98 per cent of people are aware of climate change and the need to save energy, but two-thirds of them think that they cannot do much about it. Therefore, the connection has to be made between individual performance and behaviour in households to show that that performance is for the greater good. Action is under way on this.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to consider an old initiative, which proved extremely effective in saving energy during World War II, by introducing the measures on daylight saving that have been proposed from time to time in your Lordships' House?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know whether this is a free vote subject, but I tend to agree with the noble Viscount. I was pleased to discover, after answering a Question in a similar vein yesterday, that there will indeed be a debate on daylight saving during the proceedings of the Climate Change Bill. However, we do not have to go back and invent the wheel; we can do many things, such as switching things off, which save money and energy at the same time—those are common-sense actions.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, following the part of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the Minister did not answer, what estimate has been made of the savings that may be achieved by the wider introduction of microgeneration—for instance, along the lines recently proposed by my right honourable friend David Cameron?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know. I would need advance notice of such a complex question to get a detailed answer. I will write to the noble Lord.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, it is estimated that 7 million houses in the current housing stock have cavity walls without insulation. What are the Government going to do to solve that problem and ensure that the energy savings through that insulation are made on the current housing stock?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have just launched the Energy Saving Trust scheme announced by the Prime Minister, which is a £100 million exercise to get increased performance in households. That will cover advice, and cavity wall insulation is clearly part of that process. In a way, the housing stock is the biggest single problem. We can deal with new houses, because we build so few, but we have a 20 million-plus housing stock. We also have a lot of school stock, and later today in the Statement it will be announced that from 2016, all new schools will be zero carbon.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, as someone who believes in Father Christmas, are the Government going to take any measures to stop excessive street lighting over the Christmas period? I hope not, myself.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are not the Government who are going to spoil Christmas for all the children in this country.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, good housekeeping begins at home—and by that I mean Whitehall, as far as the Minister is concerned. What is the situation across Whitehall and does Defra have a strategy for energy saving within the department? If so, is the Minister prepared to put it in the public domain as an exemplar to others?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can only partly repeat what I said yesterday; I regret that in the mean time, I have not had a chance to get further information. Defra had the lowest energy performance consumption and CO2 emissions per square metre of surface area used by civil departments during 2005-06, other than the Forestry Commission. So our house is in order.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, without wishing to spoil anybody's Christmas, would it not help if Christmas lights were not switched on until the middle of December?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the fact is that, if during the festive season, which must still remain festive, we switched everything off that does not need to be on, we could save 660,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which would save £17 million in energy costs.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, will the Minister please look forward with regard to energy saving, not backwards to the rather stupid days of World War II, when an edict was issued by the Government that you should not have more than six inches of water in your bath? Where are we going?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are not going back to the three-day week, when the lights went off at 10 o'clock and we were told to bath in the dark or brush our teeth in the dark, as witness has been given by one noble Lord present here today.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, to how many employees in Defra does the low-energy performance apply?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the energy consumption was for surface area used by people. I do not have the figures, but I am quite happy to provide them. It was measured by the buildings that we are using.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, although it is useful to save energy, we are not going to save the world by economising. Would it not be better to get on and build a new nuclear power station that really would give us baseload CO2-free energy and masses of it?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Prime Minister gave the lead on that in his speech recently.

Iran: Nuclear Programme

asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether their assessment of recent developments in the Iranian nuclear programme is similar to that set out in the new United States National Intelligence Estimate.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I am told that it is not the practice of this Government or previous Governments to comment on intelligence matters. However, nothing in the NIE changes the fundamental problem that we face, which is Iran's pursuit of a uranium enrichment programme that has, so far as we can see, no civilian application. That is despite the unanimous demand from the UN Security Council and from the IAEA that it should stop doing so. Accordingly, we will continue to act in the UN, in the EU and bilaterally to persuade Iran to change its approach and comply with its international responsibilities.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, none of us underestimates the potential threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the National Intelligence Estimate seems to all of us to change the context in which we are negotiating with Iran, particularly since it confirms that in 2003 the then Iranian Government made a generous offer to negotiate directly with the United States, which the Bush Administration turned down. Should we not now be pursuing direct talks with the Iranians and pulling the Americans into those talks, which must include security guarantees and greater economic co-operation, particularly as we need Iranian co-operation in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that the NIE assessment has led to a lot of debate. I remind him that, for us, the two essential elements are that a programme of uranium enhancement continues, for which we can see no civilian purpose and that, secondly, this involves a Government who are rightly heavily distrusted by ourselves and others. Our position to the Iranians is clear: allow an arrangement that does not say, in the famous words of President Reagan, "Trust but verify", but which says, "Verify so that we can trust". If those conditions are met, negotiations on all outstanding matters involving Iran, with the United States among others, are very much on the cards following such an agreement.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend has not commented on what is actually in the assessment with which we disagree. Could he do so?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my noble friend heard me say in my opening reply that I am told that it is not appropriate for the Government or their predecessors to comment either on our own or other countries' intelligence assessments.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister consider the sharp differences between the 2003 and the 2007 National Intelligence Estimates of the United States' intelligence agencies? There is a clear distinction between what in 2003 was thought to be the almost certain movement of Iran towards enrichment ending in a nuclear weapons programme, and the most recent estimate, which says with high confidence that, at least up until the publication of the estimate, there is no evidence of a weapons system being developed. Given that, will the Minister consider—because this is crucial to world peace—whether it might be appropriate for the Iranians to change to the agenda of the Baghdad talks, which he knows are going on and at which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that any issues that any member of those talks wishes to raise could be raised? Would it not therefore be wise to permit those talks to extend to regional security, which is at the heart of Iran's profound concerns about the danger of being attacked?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Baroness is aware that the 2007 report concludes that there is a high likelihood that the programme has been suspended but not ended. An enrichment programme continues, so the ability of the Iranians to resume a weapons programme quickly remains a real risk. Secondly, and more generally on the Baghdad talks, the United States has said that the opportunities for Iraq and Iran to discuss their border and security issues, for the United States to participate through the Baghdad talks and for a broader regional set of actors to participate in different UN forums are all possibilities. I remind her that the United States has also been clear that general talks between the US and Iran on overall global issues between them must await a solution to this enrichment issue.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, how does the Minister square his statement that it is not the custom of this Government or previous Governments to comment on intelligence with the decision of the previous Government to publish a dossier of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq leading up to the war and the statement of the previous Prime Minister that he now wishes he had published the whole JIC assessment?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, this novice Minister was very much hoping that that particular noble Lord would not be in the House today. He will notice that I referred to the fact that I had been told that this was the practice. As someone who was out of the country at the time, I must say I scratch my head to reconcile this with the practice when the noble Lord was involved in these issues. I think that it is at least true to say that to comment on a close ally's intelligence assessment publicly is probably not prudent.

Lord Judd: My Lords, whatever the challenges—

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I think that we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for guiding us in this matter and for reminding us that these have been, with circumspection, matters for considerable and detailed public debate. The NIE assessment has been in every newspaper and has had a major influence on opinion here, in the rest of Europe and in Tehran. What, in the Minister's evaluation, is the NIE report saying? What stopped in 2003? Was it weaponisation—the possibility of moving from enrichment, which continues, to weapons grade uranium and weapons manufacture? Were missiles stopped? Or should we regard this with the same value as we regard other intelligence reports that told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, we believe that the programme was suspended, not ended, and that with enrichment continuing the ability to resume a programme quickly remains open to the Iranians. On the value of the assessment, the noble Lord rightly points out that assessments change over time. I do not think that the authors of this assessment would consider it to be the last word on the subject.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, we will have a Statement repeated this afternoon at a convenient time after 3.30 pm, which almost certainly will be after the first group of amendments. It will be on the children's plan and will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Adonis.

Business of the House: Standing Order 47

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, that Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages on Wednesday 12 December.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Climate Change Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Lord Teverson: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
	"Objective of the Act
	It is the objective of this Act that the United Kingdom play a fair and equitable part in the international effort to limit global average temperature rise to not more than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels."

Lord Teverson: The Climate Change Bill is the most important Bill in this Session of Parliament. It raises large issues on carbon reductions well into this century and a number of global issues, all of which have been subject to a great deal of discussion and debate, not just in the United Kingdom and Europe, but in the global community. However, a key area not covered by the Bill is why it exists and why we should have the various targets, measures and frameworks that it will bring into action.
	We all know that there is a consensus among the international community, climate change scientists and the political community that there is a considerable need to keep the temperature increase above pre-industrial levels to 2 degrees centigrade. If we do not have that in the Bill, I do not understand how the other major figures and items that we will come on to debate in Committee make sense. We from these Benches feel that it is very important that at the beginning of this Bill we have the objective that global warming should not be more than 2 degrees centigrade and that the United Kingdom should play its fair and equitable part in making sure that that objective is reached.
	I remind the Committee that the Defra statement of 19 November on the post-2012 framework for tackling climate change said:
	"To avoid the dangerous impacts of global warming, global temperatures must rise no more than 2 degrees above those of pre-industrial times".
	If that is not authoritative enough, the Prime Minister said on the same day in what was seen as a keynote speech on the Government's climate change policy:
	"But our mission is in truth historic and it is world changing—to build over the next 50 years and beyond a global low carbon economy ... Our vision has one overriding claim: holding the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees centigrade".
	The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes it clear that if that objective is not achieved, among very many other consequences there is a risk of some 30 to 40 per cent of species becoming extinct—a risk, not a certainty, as in many of these areas of climate science.
	For those reasons we believe that the Bill should do exactly what the Government say it should do; it should lay out without doubt the context in which the Government and this nation will pursue the problem of climate change. This target should actually be in—

Lord Clinton-Davis: Can the noble Lord cite an example in which the objectives of the Bill have been defined as far as statute law is concerned? I do not think that he can.

Lord Teverson: If I understand the noble Lord, in terms of being binding, the United Kingdom can only have a certain—

Lord Clinton-Davis: What I just asked the noble Lord is whether he can point to other statutes where objectives have been defined. I do not think that he can.

Lord Teverson: I will respond to that by saying that the Government are claiming that this Bill is unique, that this type of legislation has never been brought forward anywhere else in the world and that therefore it is of a different nature from much of the legislation that we have seen in other countries or indeed in this country. I think that it is entirely valid to have the proper objective as stated by the Government included at the beginning of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Amendment No. 2 is the only amendment in this group with which we are directly associated, but we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that it is a good idea to set out at the beginning of this Bill a statement on the objective of the Bill—not just the means but the long-term objective.
	The amendment aims simply to ensure that the Bill has a proper aim. The logic behind it is straightforward: if the Bill seeks to solve the problem of climate change, that should be on the face of the Bill. As it stands, the Bill's only real objective is to reduce the amount of UK emissions by an arbitrary figure, which even the Government now seem to recognise might not necessarily be the right one. Why is the Bill's true purpose not reflected in the legislation?
	We take our cue in mentioning the 2-degree increase in temperature from what seems to be the general consensus in the scientific community. That is what we seek to address. Indeed, the text of the amendment is based on a European Council document, cited by WWF. If the Bill is to have the scope that the Government seem to hope for it—that it is to be a serious assault on the problems associated with the rise in the earth's temperature—we see no reason why this should not be reflected in legislation. We hope that the Minister will agree. If this is the scientifically identified problem, we should not shy away from naming it.
	The amendment would also create a general duty, which we believe would focus the Bill. It is necessary to ensure that the committee sets a new, higher target for 2050, and to provide a framework or focal point for the other matters on which the committee will be working. This general duty means that our amendment goes further than the Liberal Democrat amendment, although it goes very much in a similar direction.
	The Second Reading debate indicated that there will be much discussion in Committee about the precise percentage of reductions in carbon emissions. The Bill's professed goal is being disputed. As all your Lordships agree that the genuine overall aim is to stop global warming, will the Minister consider reflecting this consensus in the legislation in the beginning? Any debate on the objectives of the Bill should be tethered to the scientific reality of the more general purpose of this legislation. In essence, we want to ensure that our objectives are clear. Although the magnitude of this problem is daunting, that should not keep it from being stated in the Bill.

The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: I am content that the noble Lords who have spoken have put into the public domain the main concerns that I suspect we all share. It is important that your Lordships recognise that we, too, on these Benches recognise that this is probably one of the most important issues ever to come before your Lordships' House. That is why there is yet another amendment to an opening title in my name.
	Climate change has in the past been seen as an issue concerned solely with the environment, but I shall take a few moments to explain why it is so much more important and wide ranging. That is why my amendment includes a subsection to require the Prime Minister and other Secretaries of State to take personal responsibility for this and not to leave it simply in one area.
	First, climate change is an economic issue. Sir Nicholas Stern's report for Her Majesty's Treasury illustrated this strongly, setting out clearly and powerfully the costs of dealing with climate change now and the vastly greater costs that will inevitably fall on us if we do very little at this stage.
	Secondly, climate change is a key development issue. Recent Christian Aid research from Bolivia found that communities have noticed detailed and profound changes in the local weather and in plant and animal life. This is having an effect on their local food supply, the clothes that they wear, their sources of income and how they live.
	Thirdly, climate change is a security issue. My noble friends will know of my interest in the Sudan, with which the diocese of Salisbury has had links for some 35 years. The conflict in Darfur has been described as the first climate change war. It is obvious, but still important to say, that the causes of any war are complex and manifold and that the conflict and consequent destabilisation in Darfur have a multitude of causes. However, greater pressure on scarce land and water resources has clearly contributed enormously, just as it has in relation to the use of the waters in the Upper Nile area. As in so many areas, climate change does not create the problem, but it does hugely worsen it. Sudan is the country with the dubious distinction of having the highest number of internally displaced persons—more than 5 million. One feature of a world in which the climate is allowed permanently and catastrophically to change would be massive increases in such displacement and in the overall levels of migration.
	Fourthly, climate change is an issue of justice. The poorest countries which are feeling the very worst impact of the problems that I described are the ones that have contributed and largely still contribute the least to the problem. We must act on that.
	I am concerned that the targets in the Bill are not strong enough. They were drawn up seven years ago and they are out of date. It is right for the Government to say that they will be put before the committee established by the Bill, but it is bad practice for us to pass a Bill that is already out of date when we start considering it. That is why it is important that we commit the leaders of our country—the Prime Minister and the heads of all the departments—to act together in this matter. It is not a matter just for the department dealing with environmental issues.
	The Tyndall Centre at the University of Manchester has said that if every country adopted Bills that only included equivalent levels of emission, global temperatures would rise by 4 to 5 degrees centigrade. Someone should take responsibility for this in the world and offer leadership. If we go on telling other people what to do about things but do not do anything ourselves, we will be in a weak position to take any leadership on this matter in the world. It will not do to stand by waiting for somebody else to take responsibility. That is why we need this Bill. Of course it can legislate only for what we do in this country, but it must include the whole range of the issues that I outlined. That is why my amendment uses rather stronger terms than those used by my noble colleagues.

Lord Redesdale: My noble friend has spoken about Amendment No. 1. I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 142 and 157, which are in my name. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor: we support his amendment as he supports ours. There is not a great deal of political debate among the parties—even within the Government's party—about what we are trying to achieve in this Bill. However, how we actually achieve that objective will suffer from some variance. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether there was a precedent for this type of legislation. Of course there is: Kyoto is a classic example of something that we and a vast number of other countries signed up to. This is actually ratifying how we deal with the amount of emissions.
	Amendment No. 142 deals with the aims of the committee. One of the problems that we have is with the committee itself, which has not yet come into existence—I do not believe that the members of the committee have been interviewed yet and they will have no power until the legislation comes into force. The committee will deal with science that is continually developing. The right reverend Prelate described how science is becoming old and how targets are being revised even as we speak. However, the 2 degrees Celsius target is most important because it is the one that most scientists agree will cause catastrophic change: it is the tipping point. Amendment No. 142 would ensure that the committee had an overarching aim to remind the Government that that was the target that we must meet.
	Of course, if it was only up to the British Government to meet this target, the situation would be a great deal simpler. We have only a small influence on the total amount of gases emitted. However, if reports in the papers are to be believed, the amount of carbon dioxide that we are emitting has exceeded the levels that we thought had been reached, because of the carbon that we export to other producing countries. Amendment No. 157 would make it clear to the committee that that should be one of its objectives, along with making sure that recommendations of further cuts dealt with the rise of 2 degrees Celsius. That would be a clear aim of the committee's recommendations.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Having been mentioned by the noble Lord in his contribution, I would like to answer the points that he raised. The Bill and the amendments that have been tabled should have a clear objective, but that is a matter for speeches rather than for definition in the Bill. It is important to recognise whether the Bill is justiciable. No amendments can address that point. As I say, the objectives must be defined by the Minister in his speech in support of the Bill. It is an appropriate matter to raise at Second Reading, but it is not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. It is wholly inappropriate to try to illustrate the purposes of the Bill in a clause. If we applied domestic legislation as a precedent, the noble Lord could not point to a situation where that had been done. Of course, it has been argued that we are faced with a new situation, which we are. That does not mean that we have to devote ourselves to an irrelevant consideration as far as the Bill is concerned. I think that it is an irrelevant consideration—important to raise at Second Reading, but not, as a matter of course, in the Bill itself.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury has tabled a very interesting amendment. He made the point that Secretaries of State should be made directly responsible for the actions required. Did he really mean to refer to what the Bill calls the "national authorities", meaning Ministers in the devolved Assemblies as well? I realise that he speaks from the Benches of the Church of England, but I do not think that the intention of his amendment will be met unless the devolved Assemblies are also given responsibility.

Viscount Bledisloe: I have a question for both opposition Front Benches. If this objective is to be put in the Bill, plainly it must be capable of being decided in court whether that objective has been fulfilled. What is the pre-industrial level? How does one know what the pre-industrial level was? Even more fantastically, what are the "pre-industrial levels"—in the plural—as appear in both proposed new clauses? How on earth can an average temperature increase be of more than 2 degrees above various pre-industrial levels? The temperature can only possibly have risen above a specific pre-industrial level that is capable of absolute ascertainment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, raised a point that also concerns me. The difficulty with temperatures is that they are very imprecise. The historical record clearly indicates that there have been considerable fluctuations in temperature over time. The record can be traced much further back than the pre-industrial level if one looks at the archaeological record. A more positive measure of what is going on in the atmosphere has always been, and still is, the number of parts per million of carbon dioxide. We can take that record back for a million years through the use of air bubbles in ice cores, which also contain carbon dioxide. That has been done. For roughly a million years, until somewhere in the 19th century, that level fluctuated around 270 parts per million, give or take about 10 or 15 parts. That record is consistent. So that is the first problem I have with this.
	Secondly, 2 degrees centigrade where? Are we talking about 2 degrees centigrade here, 2 degrees centigrade in central Africa or 2 degrees centigrade in other places? If my reading is correct, some fairly recent research has shown that the temperature in this country has risen in the past decade by nearly 1 degree centigrade on average. If we were to keep up that rate—and that is where we are today—we would be way over 2 degrees centigrade. That indicates that we are perhaps already past the tipping point.
	The third point about the 2 degrees centigrade is that it is severely open to question whether we might not already have gone past the point which will take our temperatures up to that level and beyond it, in which case we have something of a problem. So although I agree with absolutely everything that has been said, I find myself in considerable difficulty over including these amendments in the Bill.
	Finally, I was absolutely delighted to hear what the right reverend Prelate had to say about our aspirations for leadership in this matter. He neatly trumped what I was going to say later. I may bore the Committee by repeating those remarks but at least he has the assurance that I will try to abbreviate them.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friends. It is not as though they plucked the 2 degrees out of the air. The Joint Committee received an immense amount of evidence from very eminent scientists about what the Bill should aim to do. I believe that their amendment results from that. It is not something that they have thought up for themselves.
	The part of the amendment that I particularly support concerns the fair and equitable concept. Although I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says about leadership—the Government said a lot about the leadership role that the Bill plays—the Bill should, for the reasons laid out by the right reverend Prelate, be as much about cleaning up our own act and setting our own house in order as telling the rest of the world what to do. The amendment is particularly important because it would set the tone for the rest of the Bill. As we debate the level at which international credits should be set and what role the EU Emissions Trading Scheme should play we should keep very much in mind that individuals in this nation consume three, four or even six times as much as people not even in the poorest developing countries of the world but those on a middle income. We are really very greedy. We should make sure that we start to play a fair and equitable role and do not rely on some of the mechanisms that we could rely on, which would do very little. The amendment would establish a powerful context for that.

Lord Jay of Ewelme: I see the logic of including an objective in the Bill. The arguments put forward by the proposers of all three amendments seem to me strong and convincing. This is an exceptional Bill, as the Government have said many times. Therefore, it is reasonable that it should have some exceptional features. Therefore, if it does, it is also reasonable, to depart from precedent to this extent. I see the logic of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. However, on the question of justiciability, this seems an issue which arises in relation to other targets in the Bill and not just the 2 degrees centigrade. I am not certain that this is relevant to these clauses. As far as the figures are concerned, the science has evolved. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was saying, we had much evidence put to us on the Joint Committee.
	The science has evolved enough for specific figures to be feasible, testable and satisfactory and to be included in this Bill. Therefore, I support the direction of Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. However, I believe that the clearer, shorter and simpler this Bill's objective is, the better—in particular, with regard to clarity of the 2 degrees centigrade figure. As between the three, I would prefer the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend's amendment. When we debated this Bill at Second Reading, many of us were concerned that it is a skeleton Bill: that it leaves a lot of powers out—that there was not enough within it. We will discuss that in detail later.
	Although one could say that the amendments may not be appropriate at the Bill's final stage, they raise an important issue, upon which the right reverend Prelate has touched. It is clear that we are leading the world with this Bill. I do not agree with the comment that because it is a different Bill—because it has not happened before—we cannot take a stance on it at this stage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
	It is important that we have a slightly greater steer at the beginning of this Bill. If the Minister is unable to accept these amendments—I suspect that he will not be able to—the Government might consider strengthening what we have before us, because it is not strong enough. I would be concerned if I were in one of the foreign countries that will be most affected by it but which have very little control over what effect carbon emissions are having there.
	I said at Second Reading that it is a moral issue. It is not just about what we do in this country, although that is enormously important to our people; it is much more important in relation to our responsibilities worldwide. I hope that the Minister will not just say that the Government cannot accept the amendments but that they will give serious thought to strengthening and improving the direction—the message—set out at the start of the Bill. I support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Having read the amendment and listened to the debate, I am not convinced this amendment is necessary as a preamble to the Bill. The Government obviously take climate change very seriously. That is why they have produced the Bill, which is detailed and deals perfectly adequately with every matter raised during the debate so far. Additional verbiage in a Bill of this sort will not help the objectives, which some have doubts about. Statements have been made during this debate which one must query. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, described this climate change as being unique. It is by no means unique. As everyone knows, climate change has been happening over a long period of time.

Lord Clinton-Davis: When I made the statement, I was referring to something that was said by the Opposition; it does not necessarily accord with my own views. I do not think that I would depart in any way from what I said. The job of the Bill is to enact exactly what we want and it should be justiciable, and in no way can this be.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am interested in what the noble Lord has just said. I support the point that he made, but I am dealing with a statement that he made during his speech and that others have made before him. If the House of Lords had been around 12,000 years ago, we would not be debating a 2 per cent increase in temperatures; we would probably have been debating a 10 per cent decrease in temperatures. The situation now is by no means unique—

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The uniqueness is in the man-made nature of the climate change.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I did not want to go into that, but I will now go into the nature of it. Man has been doing all sorts of things over a very long period of time. Nature is actually very clever, because in many instances, it manages to undo the damage that has been done by man. But on that point alone it is being claimed that global warming is due to man-made activity. I do not necessarily dispute that, but the approach that this House and others are taking to rectifying that position is, if I might say so, quite absurd. They are blaming man for increases in temperature, yet they are quite happy to see the world's population rise from 6 billion at present to 9 billion in 2050, so that the contribution of man could increase by 50 per cent. That is not being taken seriously.
	Secondly, if man is going to make a real contribution not only to climate change but to other environmental aspects, people have to learn to live within the means of the planet. They are not doing that, and that is not what they are expected to do. In fact, every country in the world desperately wants to increase production year by year. That really is quite ridiculous and it cannot happen. If you believe that man's activity will cause this huge climate change, you have to do something realistic about it and not just play with the problem; that is what we are doing in this Bill. I have to say that. After all, we make a contribution of only 2 per cent to CO2 emissions, so what we can do, except give a lead, is very limited. If the country and the world want to deal with the problem realistically, they have to make some very difficult and very serious decisions.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I would like to respond from our point of view. There has been criticism of the amendments. Those of us who want the Bill to be sound and thorough are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith for criticising, to some degree, the way we have presented an amendment that is more concerned with aims in the abstract than mechanics in the detail. That may be a challenge to good law—I do not know. However, when people look at the legislation 43 years from now, all the speeches that we are making will be totally forgotten. They will want to know what we were seeking to deal with when we set out. That has been made clear; all the evidence that we have received has shown that carbon emissions are leading to global warming, and that is what we are seeking to address. It is proper that we set out in the Bill what we are seeking to address by the mechanical means that we are giving the Committee on Climate Change, future Secretaries of State, Prime Ministers and Governments dealing the problem—those who will determine action for many years to come. That is why I believe we are right to debate these proposals at the beginning of the Bill.

Lord Rooker: We have got off to a good start. It would have been even better if I could have announced at the outset that the Government would be accepting the amendments. I am not able to do that today, for reasons that I will explain.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis about purposes and objectives. No one has mentioned the central duty of the Bill, which is clearly set out in Clause 1—to reduce the UK's net carbon account by a certain figure by a certain date. It is clear, unambiguous, and one cannot avoid understanding the meaning. The UK remains committed to the European Union's 2 degree target, but there is no simple relationship between that target and the UK's 2050 target, which is why we oppose the amendments.
	The increase in global average temperatures will be determined by atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There is significant uncertainty in the relationship, which is why bodies such as the IPCC use a range of probability to reflect the current level of scientific understanding. It is not clear how the amendments address that uncertainty. In addition, the science is clear that the UK cannot operate alone. We are responsible for only 2 per cent of emissions. People will argue that as it is only 2 per cent why are we bothering? The point is that we want to give a lead. We cannot achieve the 2 degree target on our own. That is clearly impossible.
	At the moment, reaching the 2 degree target referred to by several noble Lords depends on atmospheric concentrations, and there is a degree of uncertainty. For instance, if atmospheric concentrations of the gases reach around 450 parts per million, it is estimated that there will be around a 50 per cent chance of exceeding the 2 degree temperature increase. It is likely that we will need global emissions to peak in the next 10 to 15 years and for global greenhouse gas emissions to reduce by at least 50 per cent by 2050 on 1990 levels. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are already at 430 parts per million in a CO2 equivalent, and rising at more than 2 parts per million per year. Even if global emissions stopped today, there is around a 30 to 40 per cent chance of exceeding that 2 degree target.
	Not accepting the new clause is not to shirk our responsibilities. We recognise that developed countries such as the UK must take a lead in reducing emissions. That was the agreed principle of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is why we have set ambitious targets through the Bill, and why we will be asking the independent Committee on Climate Change to review whether the targets should be tightened further. It is clear that the world will tackle climate change only if we take urgent and ambitious action together. That is why we are introducing the Bill in the first place; we need not apologise for that. To people living in other countries that will probably be damaged far more than the UK, we can proudly say what we are doing through the Bill; it is clear in the Long Title and Clause 1. It is also why we are working hard at international negotiations, including currently at Bali, where the Secretary of State and the team are to launch the negotiations for the post-2012 framework.
	The amendments do not capture that important element of the UK's efforts to tackle global climate change. In addition, significant uncertainties arise from the amendments—I am not nit-picking, but they seek to change primary legislation although I realise that they are in some ways probing—around, for instance, the concept of the UK's fair share or how we will assess the UK emissions necessary to contribute to a particular level of global temperature. We think it better that there is a clear objective such as the 2050 target—a short number of words set out in the first part of the Bill.
	I sympathise with the right reverend Prelate's efforts to tease out the uncertainties in the relationship, but I am afraid that we cannot accept Amendments Nos. 3, 11A and 14 at this point. The proposals risk cutting across the review of the 2050 target which the Committee on Climate Change will carry out. The review will consider the scientific developments since the royal commission's report in 2000; I fully accept that it was a long time ago and that things have changed, but that is what we are putting the Committee on Climate Change together for. The committee also has to take account of the wider international context. Amendment No. 3 also risks cutting across the UK's efforts to secure international consensus. It would determine the UK's "fair share" of global emissions to 2050 on the basis of the approach known as contraction and convergence, in the absence of international agreement on a different way of allocating the emissions between countries. As your Lordships will be aware, the long-term goal of guiding global action on climate change and how it should be allocated between countries is the subject of complex and delicate international negotiations. It is not a simple question; I am not saying that in a pejorative sense.
	The contraction and convergence approach has some attractions, in that it identifies a fixed level of stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations, and that it is based on the idea of comprehensive global participation. However, one key element of any future regime has to be its workability. One concern with contraction and convergence is how globally acceptable, and in consequence how workable, it will prove. A number of other approaches to determine a fair and equitable share are being discussed at international level. Given that there is some way to go in building the consensus within the international community that would be required to agree on a framework for a way forward, it would be premature for the UK Government to commit themselves in law to any framework at this stage. By nailing our colours so firmly to the mast in favour of one approach, we risk undermining our ability to persuade international partners to sign up to any workable approach commensurate with the scale of the challenge.
	Amendments Nos. 49 and 142 relate to carbon budgets. Clause 8, which we shall obviously come to in due course, already requires carbon budgets to be set with a view to meeting the 2050 target. That will ensure that, in the committee's advice on carbon budgets and the Government's decisions, budgets are set to put the UK on the right trajectory to meet the 2050 target. It is not clear how the amendments will add value to the Bill. The 2050 target provides a clear and defined goal, and the carbon budgets set under the Bill will take us there.
	I shall turn briefly to Amendment No. 157—

Lord Redesdale: As I understood it, the 2050 targets were set so that we did not go past the 2-degree threshold. What is the basis of the targets if not the 2 degrees?

Lord Rooker: I will come back to that. I have not said anything that contradicts it; the basis is exactly the same as when it started. As I said, these targets were set some time ago. One of the reasons that the Committee on Climate Change is being put together to review this is to bring the up-to-date science forward so that the Government can make the decisions, with the approval of both Houses. In other words, it is not fixed; otherwise we would not need the Committee on Climate Change. We would be relying on the science of some years ago and targets set more than seven years ago. We are accepting that the science has moved. That is implied, if I have not spelt it out sufficiently—the Government do not seek to gainsay it at all. It is just that the process we have arrived at, in bringing a plan to Parliament, gives us the flexibility—which we will discuss in later clauses—to make the adjustments necessary to take account of the science. I suspect that the science will move in coming years also.
	As I have said, we have already announced that we will ask the committee to review the 2050 target and report on whether it should be tightened up to 80 per cent. In this review, the committee will need to look at all the evidence and provide its advice on the appropriate level of the target. It will, of course, include all the scientific developments, nationally and internationally, since the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report in June 2000. The committee's review of that 2050 target is the appropriate place to look at this kind of question.
	I freely admit, as I have said to noble Lords privately and on Second Reading, that in the absence of having the final framework of how the Committee on Climate Change will work and its powers and functions—which will be debated in both Houses—and without knowing the names, stature, background and independence of the individuals, which we are not currently able to say as they have not been interviewed prior to appointment, the House is being asked to agree the basic framework on the basis that we get the rest right. We will know about the functions and powers of the committee if they change as they go through Parliament. By the time we get to Report and Third Reading we will have an idea of the membership, background and calibre of the committee, so that the House can be assured—or otherwise, as the case may be—of what it wants to do about reinforcing the Bill. I am not asking the House to take this on a blind promise. That information will be known at the relevant time.

The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: I am sorry to intervene, and am sympathetic to the complexity of what the Minister has to manage. But it is precisely because the framework is not sufficiently clear that this matter is not just for the Committee on Climate Change. It involves all the other things that I put into the amendment in my name. Can the Minister give me an assurance that the major framework in which we are trying to debate these things will be reflected at the outset of the Bill as it is finally brought to us? That would give many of us in your Lordships' House confidence that these issues were not just seen as isolated environmental issues but had to do with finance, defence, globalisation and the security and peace of the world as well. That is the reassurance I would seek from the Minister if I were not to press my amendment.

Lord Rooker: The right reverend Prelate has no need to apologise. Save for one other Bill that I helped to steer through this House just after I became a Member—after the 9/11 catastrophe in the United States—this is the only Bill to touch every department of government. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that while Defra is in the lead—some department has to manage it—the whole of Whitehall is engaged in the Bill. Whitehall is more engaged than it would have been if the Bill had started in the other place because it has received the distilled results and consequences of the Second Reading in your Lordships' House; and the message has gone around that in the Lords this will not wash as it is now. Therefore, some aspects put forward by Members of the Committee will require more flexibility. All the departments mentioned by the right reverend Prelate and others are actively engaged with the Bill team, which is Whitehall-wide, on what we need to do to secure a Bill with which we can all be satisfied. The Committee stage notwithstanding, early in the new year, at Report stage, there will be opportunities to look at what we do with the Bill, including the structure of the Committee on Climate Change, to see whether the House thinks that the Government have got this right.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: To what extent are the devolved assemblies and the Scottish Parliament engaged equally with the Whitehall departments?

Lord Rooker: The Whitehall departments are still engaged with the devolved assemblies. We still have a Scotland Office, a Wales Office and a Northern Ireland Office. These are UK targets and the devolved Administrations are committed to following them. They may have to legislate for this in their own way and that which is reserved to Westminster will be covered in this Bill. We are not legislating for England only; this is the UK's contribution; but the devolved Administrations are fully on board and are actively participating in the discussions on the Bill.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My noble friend referred to the fact that the Committee on Climate Change would consider all the international evidence on the difference between 60 per cent and 80 per cent. Paragraph 45 of the report of the Joint Committee states:
	"Bearing in mind however the weight of scientific evidence before the Committee that a target of more than 60% is likely to be necessary".
	To what extent was evidence before the Joint Committee which suggests that the 80 per cent target might be necessary? Has that already been considered in the departments? It would be interesting to know that before the debate on the 60/80 issue.

Lord Rooker: All I can say to my noble friend is that the Bill refers to at least 60 per cent. There is a strong indication there that the Government accepted that 60 per cent was the minimum and that the desirability was to be above 60 per cent. That is probably an inadequate answer for my noble friend. The fact is that it was considered relevant in Whitehall and among those planning the Bill that the target would be not 60 per cent but at least 60 per cent.

Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for going through the Government's view of this new clause in great detail and the other amendments in the group. I return to the understanding of temperatures in the past and their variability. I am sympathetic with the many Members of the Committee who spoke about the habit of statisticians who talk about great accuracy in statistics when there is none. There is considerable research about these temperatures and there is sufficient evidence on which we can rely. Our own Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology's publication on climate change science states:
	"Over the last 100 years the global mean surface temperature has warmed 0.74oC �0.18oC, although there is significant regional variability.
	We all understand that there are limitations, but that shows that we can have confidenceas much as we can in any climate change scienceabout the figures that we are discussing. Indeed, we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we start to question the numbers that the Bill is based upon. The Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill, chaired so well by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, went through so much of this so that both Houses could assure themselves that the figures were correct.
	I return to the amendments. I agree with many of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, particularly those in his second intervention. There is a great need for clarity in the Bill. The fact that something has not been done before in UK domestic legislation should not put us off doing something special here, as the Bill is very special. Therefore, we owe it to have clarity. We are asking the Committee on Climate Change to consider revising the specific targets in the Bill, so it is important to have that context and objective in the Bill. That is why the argument for having 2 degrees centigrade in the Bill, and at the beginning, remains important. We will wish to pursue this, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Children's Plan

Lord Adonis: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the Children's Plan made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary for State for Children, Schools and Families. The Statement is as follows:
	The first ever Children's Plan, which we are publishing today, follows months of consultation with parents, teachers, professionals, and children and young people themselves, up and down the country.Over the last 10 years, the lives of children have improved. School standards are up and child poverty is down, while we have many more outstanding schools and many fewer failing schools. However, following our detailed consultations, the results of which I have laid before the House, I have concluded that we need further reforms to deliver a world-class education for every child; that we must do more to prevent children falling behind or failing to fulfil their potential because of learning difficulties, poverty or disadvantage; and that, while there are more opportunities for young people today than ever before, families want more help to manage the new pressures that they face in balancing work and family life, in dealing with the internet and modern commercialism and in letting children play while staying safe. The Children's Plan is our response. First, Mr Speaker, there are new measures to support the learning of every child. The early years are critical. So as we raise the entitlement to free nursery care for all three and four year-olds from 12 to 15 hours, we will now allocate over 200 million over the next three years to ensure that young children get the highest-quality care in their early years, with at least two graduates in nurseries in the most disadvantaged areas, and we will extend the offer of free nursery places to 20,000 two year-olds in the most disadvantaged communities. School standards are rising, but I want to accelerate the improvement. I have therefore asked Sir Jim Rose to undertake a root-and-branch review of the primary curriculum to create more space for teaching the basicsEnglish and maths, with a foreign language in all primary schoolsand to ensure that all children start secondary school with the personal skills to succeed. If our Making Good Progress trials are successful, we will implement 'stage not age' testing nationallythe biggest reform to national curriculum assessment since its creation. To back our teachers, I am today allocating 44 million over the next three years so that all new teachers will be able to study for a masters-level qualification, and to establish a new Future Leaders programme to bring even more talented people into teaching. Supporting parents is central to this Children's Plan. In future, every parent will have a record of their child's development and education through the early years and into primary school, and the Minister for Schools will consult parents and schools over the next few months, and legislate if necessary, to ensure that every child has a personal tutor who stays with them as they progress through secondary school; every parent receives up-to-date information about their child's progress, attendance and behaviour, using 'real time' reporting and new technologies such as mobile phones or the internet; and, so that parents know what they can expect, how they will be consulted and how they can express concerns and complaints, every secondary school will have a parents' council. Parents also want earlier intervention if their child falls behind. Alongside one-to-one support for reading and maths at primary school and our new Every Child a Writer programme, I am allocating 18 million over the next three years to improve initial teacher training about special educational needs and to find new ways of identifying dyslexia earlier. Following the Bercow review, Ofsted will lead a full review into our special education needs provision in 2009.In our consultation, head teachers told us that schools need more support from other services to tackle all barriers to learning. Today, one in 10 children has a diagnosed mental health problem, but schools repeatedly say how hard it is to get the CAMHS children's mental health service to engage with them early enough. So I have agreed with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health that we will launch a review of CAMHS to investigate how it can work better with schools and to identify where early support is most needed. Our two departments will also produce the first ever child health strategy in the spring.We will also enhance inspection across schools and children's services and examine whether children's trusts arrangements need to be strengthened, including through further legislation if necessary. To further improve services for parents and to enable better early intervention, we will publish new guidance for Building Schools for the Future to ensure that, where possible, schools are designed with other serviceshealth, police, social care, advice and welfare servicescollocated with them. Because schools must be sustainable for our children and their children, we will now set a new ambition that all new schools will be zero-carbon by 2016. With the reforms that I have announced to the House to tackle failing and coasting schools, to expand the academies and trusts programme, to raise the education leaving age to 18 and to introduce new diplomas, this Children's Plan sets us on course to deliver ambitious, long-term goals for a world-class education for every child.Discipline in schools is essential for raising standards. We have given teachers new powers to tackle bad behaviour and 97 per cent of schools are now in behaviour partnerships, co-ordinating behaviour and exclusions policy, which Sir Alan Steer's report recommended should include all schools by 2008. I am minded to implement that recommendation and I am now asking Sir Alan to assess progress on all his proposals and to make recommendations in the spring. We will also strengthen the regulation of pupil referral units, improve the quality of provision and pilot a range of alternatives, including this being one role for studio schools.To break cycles of reoffending among young people, the Home Secretary and I are together allocating 66 million over the next three years to target support at young people most at risk of getting into crime. As we prepare our youth crime action plan, we will reform the education and resettlement of young offenders and pilot the use of restorative justice from April 2008. Our consultation reports that, although parents are clear that it is their job to bring up their families, they want more information and support to help them to keep their children safe and healthy. Our Children's Plan includes provision of 167 million over the next three years to fund two new expert parenting advisers in every local authority area, expand family learning, support young carers and deliver new support for families with disabled children. Dr Tanya Byron is investigating the potential risks to children from harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games and will report next March. In the spring, we will make proposals on young people and alcohol and investigate how the huge increase in commercial activity, advertising and marketing aimed specifically at children and young people is affecting their well-being.I have two further announcements. In our consultation, children and young people told us that they want more places in which to play and interesting things to do outside school and that they want to be recognised for their achievements.Earlier this year, the Minister for Children set out our 10-year strategy for young people, with an ambition of new youth facilities and places for young people to go in every constituency of the country, funded by proceeds from unclaimed assets and new investment from my department. However, I want us to start transforming youth services now. So, prior to the unclaimed assets legislation taking effect, we will invest an additional 160 million over the next two years to develop high-quality youth facilities for young people, shaped by young people themselves. This could mean 50 new state-of-the-art youth centres, 500 refurbished youth centres or more than 2,000 smaller-scale centres, including mobile units. The funding will be available for every part of the country starting in April and I urge all honourable Members to start working with young people, the voluntary sector and their local community to draw up local plans.Finally, to help parents to keep their children safe while they are playing outside, I can also announce that we will launch a new national play strategy early next year. To make this a reality, and starting next April, we will build 30 safe and supervised adventure play parks in disadvantaged areas. With a total investment of 225 million over the next three years, we will also be able to build or upgrade more than 3,500 play areas across the countryan average of 23 per local authority and seven per constituency, the largest government investment in children's play in our history.With schools, children's services, the voluntary sector and the Government all playing their full part and meeting their responsibilities, and with the 1 billion over the next three years that we are allocating to meet our Children's Plan commitments, we can unlock the talents and promote the health and happiness of all children, and not just some; back parents as they meet their responsibilities to bring up their children; and intervene early so that no child or young person is left to fall behind. Making our country the best place in the world for children to grow up is the mission of this Government and of this Children's Plan.
	My Lords, I commend the Statement to the House.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement on the 10-year Children's Plan. We have been strong advocates over the years of much of what this wide-reaching programme seeks to deliver. We have studied many of the issues in our own childhood review, which we completed earlier this year. As my honourable friend Michael Gove said, improving children's lives and closing the gap between rich and poor are vital. Therefore, there are elements of the plan that we welcome. However, if we really want to engage with parents and if we want higher standards so that our children can reach their full potential, we have to recognise that some of the plan's recommendations are gimmicky and demonstrate poverty of aspiration.
	We discussed many of the issues in our excellent debate on education on Thursday. Some of the themes in the planadvertising to children, the sexualisation of young girls, risk and adventure for young people and safe playare massive subjects in their own right. It would be impossible to cover them all today, but I see many rich veins for future debates.
	I would like to say how pleased I am that the Secretary of State, Mr Balls, has recognised what we have always known: that my noble friend Lady Thatcher is a role model that we should all be proud of. On the basis that spice means interest, excitement, zing, zest and pizzazz, Margaret Thatcher was the original spice girl.
	We have always believed in affordable, good-quality childcare. It is quite right that it should be as accessible to those in our most deprived areas as it is to those in our most affluent. That is why we supported the Government over the Childcare Bill last year and why we appreciate the extension of free entitlement to the most underprivileged two year-olds. However, we have some concerns and some questions.
	I am sure that the Minister would agree that Sure Start has disappointed in many areas and has failed to reach the very children whom it was designed to help. How will this improve for two year-olds? Has there been an impact assessment on how it will affect the private and voluntary sector providers? The establishment of free provision for three year-olds and four year-olds was a destabilising factor. If the Government are genuine about wishing to work with the private and voluntary sectors, this is a vital issue.
	Another concern is that what is right for a child of two years and, say, eight months may not be right for a child who has just turned two, especially in areas such as attachment. Once again, I want to raise our worries over the early years foundation stage, about which experts and parents alike now question whether the Government know what is best for children. Where is the room for different approaches?
	I welcome the commitment to a review of CAMHS and how it can work with schools but, with one in 10 of our children suffering from a diagnosed mental health problem and the poor access that so many have to CAMHS, this review is long overdue. We also welcome the extra help for disabled children.
	Our main concerns with this plan concern education. The 10-year plan comes only three and a half years after the Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, which heralded reform and ambitious targets to be reached by 2008. We were told by the Government that they would have,
	reached and sustained our literacy and numeracy targets of 85 percent of children reaching the expected level at the age of 11.
	The reality is that this target was missed and has now been dropped in favour of a target of 78 per cent of pupils reaching the required level by 2011. This is set against a background of the recent PIRLS study, which showed that since 2001 England had plummeted from third to 19th in the international reading literacy table with only Morocco and Romania seeing sharper declines. Is the Minister happy that by setting a target of 78 per cent of pupils reaching the expected level, the Government are effectively saying to two out of every 10 parents that they are prepared to see their children fail?
	The Government have said that they wish to include parents more in the education of their children. Who could disagree with that? One of the ways in which they envisage doing that is through regular e-mail contact, which is fine as far as it goes, but it is not the answer to failing standards. The single most important way to get parents involved is to give them real power; that is, the power to take their child out of a failing school and into a school of their choice, so that schools are properly accountable to parents. In 2005-06, 79,000 appeals were made against school place allocations; 58,000 failed and those children ended up in schools to which their parents did not want them to go. What makes it worse is that this failure to meet demand for good school places is concentrated in deprived areas: of the 58,000 children refused a place in their preferred school at appeal, more than 50 per centnearly 32,000were in the 25 per cent of local authorities with the highest levels of deprivation in England.
	Schools play an important part in the community and it is important that parents feel part of that community. That is already happening in our best schools. But first and foremost our schools should be a place where our children learn and where we prepare them to take their place in society as well rounded individuals.
	We all want the best for our children and yet the Children's Society found in its excellent work on childhood that the most important area for children was a happy home life where they spent time together as part of a family, an area not mentioned today. I worry that the Government have sent so many confusing messages to parents that either parents are scared of doing things in case they do the wrong thing or they feel that they need not bother because the state is doing it all. We should be empowering parents to help to unlock their children's talents and we should be very careful not to stand in their shoes.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I regret the fact that we do not have the original Spice Girl on our Benches but I bet you we have a Scary, a Posh andwhat are the other ones? We certainly have a Sporty. In this House we do less political grandstanding and more scrutiny and I intend to focus very carefully on the Statement and ask quite a lot of questions. If I ask for further clarification that does not mean that we do not welcome every single extra pound, or particularly every million pounds that the Government are going to spend on children, and the additional focus and outside expertise that the Government are bringing in to inform their policy-making. That we all welcome. In general, though, top-down policies will not work and so some of my questions will be to find out how much is being decided locally and how much is being determined by the Government from Whitehall.
	I agree with the Minister that the early years are critical. We welcome that the Government are providing enough money for at least two graduates in nurseries in the most disadvantaged areas but will the Minister confirm that the Government will not specify how many graduates will have to be provided? That should be for local decision-making. I also welcome the extra nursery places for another 20,000 two year-olds but, as my honourable friend David Laws in another place said, one must put that in the context of there being 650,000 children in that age group. How is this going to be done? A two year-old is very close to its parent and should be. The Government run the risk of being called a nanny state if nursery provision says, We are going to take your children away from you at the age of two. We know better how to do it. Perhaps the Minister could say a little more about how the parents of two year-olds will be involved in helping children to develop with expert advice.
	I, too, question the need for another root and branch review of the primary curriculum and wonder what the Minister envisages being taken out in order to allow more space for teaching the basics. Children already spend over 50 per cent of their time on English and maths. I welcome the concentration on personal and social education but I have some concerns about the evaluation of the SEAL programme and whether the teachers doing that evaluation are actually best equipped to do it. Does the Minister agree that before reading, the child must develop adequate listening and speaking skills? Parents play a crucial role in language development so can we not include that as a priority for all health visitors and in all government-sponsored parenting programmes? I agree with the Minister that partnership and multidisciplinary working are crucial to early identification and intervention, but the training stage of all professionals is the most appropriate time for the Government to intervene. Ministers should ensure that professionals who work with children are trained to understand other professionals' areas and how and when to bring them into play to work with them, and not take over the decisions that those professionals should be taking themselves.
	What are the Government doing about this? Speech and language fall between health and education, and although it is great to hear that the Minister is working with his counterpart in health, what in the plan will support the estimated 1.2 million children who have a communication disability, particularly the 50 per cent of children in some parts of the UK who are arriving at primary school without the speech and language skills required to learn? This involves people working together. That is why I welcome what the Minister said about the Building Schools for the Future programme, as it is quite certain from my visits to certain special schools that the collocation of professionals really helps them in multidisciplinary working. I certainly welcome the 18 million that the Minister has announced for initial teacher training in special educational needs, but what about continuous professional development for existing staff? Most members of the teaching workface are already in work. Will the Minister say what will be done about them? The review into special educational needs provision, which the Minister mentioned, will undoubtedly discover that there are major unmet needs. Will he commit to funding for the needs that are discovered?
	I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about the problem with CAMHS. The Minister said that the Government will investigate how they can work better with schools to identify where early support is most needed, but does he not recognise that quantity and quality also need to be considered to fulfil the need for CAMHS treatment? Can he give us a little more detail about the Children's Trust arrangements that he envisaged, which may need to be strengthened through legislation? On the powers to tackle bad behaviour, will the Minister confirm that the Government will concentrate on the positive activities in Sir Alan Steer's report and not concentrate simply on the punitive in relation to children's behaviour?
	Lastly, the Minister mentioned 167 million for new parenting advisers in every local authority area. Will these advisers be health visitors? The Minister will know very well that I am a great fan of health visitors, particularly because they are a universal service and carry no stigma. Can he tell the House how they will be involved in this programme?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for their broadly supportive welcome for the Children's Plan. I sense that they are both trying to set themselves up as the Spice Baronesses. I shall not volunteer them for particular roles in that regard, but I am sure that Members of the House will be glad to take offers. We could even set up an adjudication panel for later, as I sense that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, in particular is keen to steal my right honourable friend's limelight, and perhaps even the limelight of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, whom we are sad not to see in her place this afternoon.
	As I said, I was particularly glad that the two noble Baronesses supported the broad thrust of the Children's Plan: the importance of improving children's lives; the importance of supporting parentsalthough we recognise that the prime responsibility for bringing up children must of course reside with the parents, who need help, information and support, and parents in more deprived circumstances need a great deal more support than others; and the importance of narrowing the gap between the affluent and the poor. The latter has been a consistent strand of government policy in the past 10 years, and we need to take that further forward.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, was in acute danger of becoming party political in a less productive sense when she said that the proposals were gimmicky or lacking in ambition in many places. I was not quite sure which proposals she thought were gimmicky or lacking in ambition. Did she think that the 3,000 new or upgraded play centres are gimmicky or lacking in ambition, or the 160 million spent on new facilities, the expert parent advisers in every local authority area, the 20,000 new nursery places for two year-olds in disadvantaged areas, the expansion of short breaks for the parents of disabled children, the new masters qualification for all new teachers or the ITT training for teachers in special educational needs? I could go on. There is nothing gimmicky or lacking in ambition in the Children's Plan. It is a whole set of interlocking measures that will substantially improve the support available to parents and schools in the raising of children. I look forward to her support on the specific measures as we roll them out.
	The noble Baroness asked a whole series of questions about schools and I will address myself particularly to those because, as Minister for Schools, they are causes that are within my own direct area of responsibility. She asked me straight out whether we were happy that, among 11 year-olds, two out of 10 of them are not up to the standard expected of their age in literacy and numeracy. I tell her absolutely straightforwardly that we are not happy with that situation. The number and proportion of 11 year-olds reaching the standard expected of their age has risen very substantially in the past 10 years. There are now 100,000 more 11 year-olds reaching level 4 in English than was the case 10 years ago, which is a 17 percentage point improvement.
	We have seen significant improvements, but we are not satisfied with the status quo and we wish to see it improve further. That is why, for example, two years ago we appointed the Rose review. Sir Jim Rose recommended to us that best practice in the teaching of reading included much more systematic use of synthetic phonics. We are in the process of implementing that recommendation at the moment. The new letters and sounds materials, which exemplify Sir Jim's recommendations, have gone out to every primary school in the country. We have changed the national curriculum to give primacy to synthetic phonics, and Sir Jim Rose himself, who is an acknowledged expert in the whole area of the primary curriculum, is leading the primary curriculum review that we announced today.
	Sir Peter Williams, an eminent mathematician, is leading the review into mathematics teaching, which will also report in the spring, to see how we can improve the quality of teaching in that area. Therefore, I do not believe that we have been slow in taking forward the measures that are necessary to reach those two in 10 who have not been achieving the level expected of their age in literacy and numeracy.
	In respect of failing and successful schools, where the noble Baroness raised the issue of too many schools underperforming, here again there has been a substantial improvement over the past 10 years. The number of seriously underperforming schools below the 25 per cent baseline figure of five or more good GCSEs has fallen from more than 600 in 1997 to less than 30 this year. We actually raised the baseline targets that we set to 30 per cent including English and maths, so we are much more ambitious for our schools as a whole. The number of successful schools is therefore improving.
	We have been very robust in the setting up of new schools in areas where the schools are not good enough at the moment. We debated that at length last week when I set out the progress that we are making in the improvement of underperforming schools and in the establishment of new academies, of which I know that the noble Baroness has been supportive. I do not believe that we are lacking ambition at all in this area. Our ambition is that every community in the country should have outstanding primary and secondary schools and that every parent should have the opportunity to choose a good school for their child. That led us to take some radical and controversial decisions about school organisation, which we have debated in the past two years, to make that possible. It is also backed up by a capital programme for schools now running at 6 billion a year up from a capital programme of barely 600 million a year 10 years ago. Therefore, the investment necessary to create these new schools is also there and that is making possible the reforms that are described.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked me about the importance that we were giving to collocation, which she rightly recognised as crucial in improving the relationship between special educational needs provision and mainstream provision. Collocation and promoting proposals for collocation are at the heart of the Building Schools for the Future programme. Area by area, as BSF is being rolled out, proposals are coming forward for the enhancement of special educational needs provision in mainstream schools with, for example, the building of dedicated units in particular areas of special educational need but also for the collocation of special schools with mainstream schools so that the expertise can be shared between the two institutions.
	This is a central theme of BSF.
	The noble Baroness asked about the 20,000 places we are providing for two year-olds and how these would be selected. Let me make it absolutely clear that this will be done only with the consent of parents; it will be parent-led. We will not be seeking to oblige children to spend time in nursery classes at the age of two without their parents' consent. Of course, as an increasing proportion of parents now develop strong links with their children's centres from the birth of their children, we expect there to be demand to increase that number over time, and to have no difficulty in filling the places.
	The noble Baroness asked about the two parenting advisers planned for each area. We see health visitors as having a role in the provision of these parenting advisers, but do not believe that they will all be health visitors. We will seek a balanced recruitment of professionals who offer expertise in this area. On the review of special educational needs, we will seek to meet unmet needs. I should flag up that, for example, we have announced 330 million of extra provision for disabled young children, including a big national scheme for short breaks, so we are investing significantly in this area. Communications weaknesses and difficulties among children need addressing. We have the Bercow review; we will look at whether additional investment is needed in this area.
	The behaviour partnerships referred to in the Statement are not punitive at all. Their main focus is to see that there is proper provision in each area, through co-operative activity between schools, for children who are excluded from school, so that they are not out of the system. The schools themselves may, perfectly appropriately, have had to exclude pupils in certain instances, but should then make collective provision for them. This is much better than the existing provision, and will both enhance the quality of their education and make it easier to reintegrate the children afterwards. I hope that that answers most of the questions, but I will respond in writing to the others.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, we all welcome the opening words of this Children's Plan:
	The Children's Plan aims to make England
	extending that to the whole of the United Kingdom
	the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up.
	That is a great objective, but it is a long-term objectivea 10-year objective for progress. Our most valuable service to education will be to reach a consensus on the way forward. An election is not far off. Schools will value us more if we can reach a consensus on these issues. As for the general thrust, I have not had time to study the plan in detail, but I very much welcome the emphasis placed on helping those who need the most help in education. Without that help, we are heading for the most serious social problems, which are bad enough already. We will reap the whirlwind unless we implement the kind of measures that we see here.
	I want to make three points in detail; I will be brief about it. First, I notice with pleasure, echoing the Prime Minister's words in his speech to the merchants and bankers of the City of London in the summer, that a foreign language is placed alongside English and maths as a basic. That is a major statement. I look forward to seeing the work that Jim Rose will do on how to implement this. I hope very much that the Government can implement it in September 2010, as recommended in the report to which I was party.
	Secondly, taking the test when one is ready would mean that some key stage 2 children would take it after progression to secondary school. That will make sense only if they get real help to advance well and real support to reach the standard that is expected of them. The whole point is to identify and to give help. I hope that the Government will commit to that.
	Thirdly, in paragraph 3.129, which deals with helping summer-born children, one sentence puzzles me:
	Research evidence suggests that allowing all children in the year group to begin at the same time (the September of the year they turn 5) has the most positive impact as it allows summer-born children to receive the same amount of full-time schooling as their peers.
	I cannot see why, if these children defer a year, they should not nevertheless get the same schooling as other children. They do not have to leave school early; they can have their full ration. I am not trying to argue with the policy. I particularly welcome the proposal that Sir Jim Rose should look into this, but that one sentence puzzles me.
	Generally speaking, I wish this well. I hope that we will get into the detail at a later stage and make it something that will command respect and support across the House.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, this is one of the few statements of forward policy that I have made to the House that does not involve the setting-up of a review or a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. His excitement at the prospect of not having to conduct another review is palpable. However, the plan takes forward the recommendations of his last important review on the teaching of modern foreign languages. As he rightly says, how the teaching of modern foreign languages is provided for in primary schools will be a key feature of Sir Jim Rose's review. We will look to see how we can implement the commitment that we gave in the primary review that we would seek to make the teaching of modern foreign languages mandatory in primary schools.
	In respect of summer-born children, which is becoming a constant theme of the noble Lord's interventions, he is right that paragraph 3.129 of the plan mentions the positive impact of allowing summer-born children to receive the same amount of full-time schooling as their peers, but I am glad to say that it is followed by paragraph 3.130, which states that Sir Jim Rose will consider this issue and, in particular,
	whether it would be appropriate to allow greater flexibility in start dates.
	I encourage the noble Lord to speak to Sir Jim Rose directly about this, because there are not many people in the country who know more about it than he does. He and a group of researchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies are serious experts on this issue, but there are not many others. I am sure that he and the noble Lord would have a productive conversation.
	As regards pupils sitting tests when they are ready rather than on the set dates regardless of readiness, the noble Lord is right that such a step would require substantial and proper support. Big issues are raised about how it would be implemented in practice. That is why we are piloting single-level tests sat at two points in the year, with teachers entering pupils for them when they believe that the children are ready. This pilot is taking place in more than 400 schools and we intend to evaluate the results before we make firm commitments on how we proceed.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, these Benches reflect the views given by our two spice Baronesses. This is a case very much of a yes but one or two buts. I wish to make three points. First, the curriculum needs to be looked at. However, as the parent of two teachers, I can hear them groaning in the distance, More change. Where is the stability?. What about the Cambridge-led review of testing on which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked an Oral Question two weeks ago? I should register what we all know to be the case: that it will be mighty difficult to win over many teachers to a complete overhaul of the curriculum, even though parts of it need to be looked at.
	My second point concerns that big word resources. I suppose that in broad terms these Benches represent the voluntary sector, or part of the voluntary sector. We all know that to put right what is amiss in childhood will be a long haul, not a quick fix. In some other areas, although not necessarily in education, the Government have a habit of throwing money at the community. I refer to the National Health Service as, I hope, an ex-patient. In the National Heath Service you will come across areas where lots of money is spent, and overspent, but other areas where it is underspent. That leads me to emphasise that the voluntary sector is increasingly under pressure as things are devolved to it that the statutory bodies can no longer afford to carry out. What about these drop-in centres that we hear about? Research has been carried out on parents whose experience of education has not been favourable. How will they take to these drop-in centres?
	My final point brings us back to one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about family life. This is a minefield, but it is important. Right next to our house in Fareham, there is a lollypop lady, to whom I am married. She functions twice a day and I sometimes look at her clientele. We need to redefine family in terms of the extended family. It is very often grandparents who are doing the ferrying because parents are working. We all know that there are other more radical ways in which the family can be redefined, in terms of gender and so on. However, I want the importance of the family to be underlined. Perhaps, in the past, the church has overemphasised the family. I know that family life is not for everyone and that families can destroy people, but it is important that we underline and recognise the centrality of the family in society.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I greatly welcome and agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate's remarks about the importance of both the family and the voluntary sector and about seeing that the latter is able to access new resources on a level playing field, which we are anxious that it should do. I also agree with his remarks about the curriculum. He is quite right that one needs to combine necessary stability with review of areas that need to change. I assure him that that will be the case, because the person whom we have appointed to conduct the review is Sir Jim Rose, who led the review on the teaching of reading two years ago and who is an expert adviser to Sir Peter Williams's review on the teaching of mathematics in primary school; he is a long-standing expert on primary education, as the right reverend Prelate knows. With his wisdom being brought to bear on the review, there is no danger of our introducing policies that do not have a necessary degree of continuity with other recent changes to the primary curriculum.

Baroness Morris of Yardley: My Lords, I welcome the Statement today and congratulate my noble friend and his colleagues on it. The plan is ambitious. There is a welcome shift of focus from the policy that we have had in the past five years. Never have I read a Green Paper where implementation is going to be more challenging but where, if we get it right, there are real opportunities to transform life chances for the many children whom we have not succeeded with so far. A couple of things are particularly welcome. First, I very much welcome the masters degrees for those new to teaching. I would welcome further correspondence and engagement with the Minister on that. On modern foreign languages, does he envisage that this will be compulsory rather than available in the primary school curriculum? Has he made up his mind on that?
	I have three genuine questions to probe a little behind the Minister's thinking. First, on testing, I am not one who thinks that primary school is overtested. One externally set test between the ages of five and 11 is not overburdensome. There is not a lot to be lost in that respect if the required grade at age 11 is not obtained. How will the proposals affect the reporting of results for parents and the wider public, so that we will be able to continue to compare school with school and to identify those schools that need extra support to raise standards? Secondly, in saying that we want to find more time for English and maths in the curriculum, we must ensure that we do not give a message that the arts, creativity, sports, the humanities and the sciences are not valued between the ages of five and 11. Finally, will my noble friend give a clear message to teachers that their role remains teaching and learning in the classroom? Almost the biggest danger of this Green Paper is that teachers might choose to take on some of the wider responsibilities that ought to fall to other professionals. If we ensure that their focus continues to be on teaching and learning, with other professionals coming in behind them, that might give us the best chance of success.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who speaks with great authority in this area. She is right that there is a big implementation challenge with the various measures set out in the plan. We will be saying more about that over the coming months.
	Let me deal with the points that my noble friend raised. She is absolutely right to highlight the significance of introducing masters degrees into education in a systematic way. This is a serious process of learning from international best practice. Over recent years, I and many of my colleagues have visited Finland and other Scandinavian countries, where masters courses are widely available; indeed, in Finland, they are now generally undertaken by teachers. It is hard not to make a connection between the degree of professionalism that is brought to the training and to the updating of skills in Finland and the success that Finnish schools achieve. Although we have said that this will be in the first instance an opportunity for newly qualifying teachers, I hope that we will be in a position to extend that in due course. I am very attracted to the idea that continuing professional development, which we rightly expect of our teachers, should, where they wish it, take the form of study and project work that leads to a higher-level degree. That would also help to raise the esteem and attractiveness of the teaching profession, if we can carry it through.
	My noble friend is right to highlight the importance of comparable statistics on the performance of schools. I entirely agree with her comments on testing in schools; it is not overburdensome to have one externally assessed national test between the ages of five and 11. It is our intention with the new single-level tests, if they are introduced, that we will still have reporting on a comparable basis, school by school, of the proportion achieving at each of the levels. Although the pupils may sit the tests at different times and will sit the tests at single levels, rising up the levels as their capability advances, we expect to see the results reported level by level, school by school.
	On the curriculum, I entirely agree with her that arts, creativity, sport and humanities are all absolutely vital. In my experience, those schools that are best at teaching children the basics also tend to do best in developing the arts and creativity. Like my noble friend, I entirely reject the notion that having a solid grounding in the basics, school by school, including proper catch-up support if necessary and one-to-one support for those children who are falling behind, as we also highlight in the Children's Plan, is in any way antipathetic to the development of the arts, creativity, sports and the humanities, which we also want to see as a central part of the work of our primary schools.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure that we all recognise that the noble Lord has a most encouraging understanding of what goes on in schools, which must be a great encouragement to teachers. Does he realise the effect on staff of change and of sheaves of paper arriving on desks and hours spent deciding how to implement change? Can he assure us, with his understanding of these things, that the absolute maximum amount may be left to the school to decide how to implement these changes? This is a very important point. If a school decides how to implement change, it is far more enthusiastic and it will work better. I am sure that the former Secretary of State for Education, who has just spoken, would agree with that. That seems to be very important. As a small illustration of that point, there is the business of doing the right thing about carbon efficiency. If a school thinks about this, it might well decide that people will not always teach in shirt sleeves and that the temperature of the school can be reduced. If it is told to do that, it will not do it, but if it decides for itself to do it, that is a great help. That is a simple point. If the school decides how to involve parents, it would do it so much better.
	On youth work, it is marvellous news that the Government are at last seeing that what happened in the 1960s was helpful and that a bit more concentration on thinking about where young people go and what they do in the evenings is very important. My experience on education committees goes back a long way. I remember those great and helpful days, and a lot can be done in that direction. I hope that the Government will not feel that they have got to do this through the public sector. The right reverend Prelate reminded usand the Minister gave an encouraging replythat voluntary organisations will come into this. There is still huge expertise in the private sector in informal youth work and that expertise can be built on. Some money going in will help enormously. Relaxing how people become youth workers would also help. There is so much suspicion about what youth workers might be like that lots of people are put off. I am sure that the Minister knows that, as it is an important area.
	Lastly, how is this going to be paid for? Will the Minister's department have to move money out of one area and into another? Given the prognostications about the economy for the next few years, funding is going to be tight.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the investments that I announced in the Statement are additional to published plans. They are all based on firm allocations from the Treasury. We have the cheque and it has been cashed. I assure the noble Baroness that there is no danger of the investments being clawed back.
	I entirely endorse what the noble Baroness said about the importance of the private and voluntary sectors in youth work. I did not have time to respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. The private and voluntary sectors also play a crucial role in the provision of under-fives services. There has been some dispute about how local authorities manage that role but, local authority by local authority, the private and voluntary sectors are a key provider. We wish to see their role in under-fives provision flourish, including in the extension of provision to two year-olds that I announced in the Statement.
	In my experience as a Minister, the attitude of schools to change and the degree of enthusiasm with which they implement it depends on whether they like the changes. Schools are not against change per se, but they want to be fully consulted and engaged in the process of change. A key point about change in the education system in recent years has been that, as in so many other areas of life, power tends to follow money. The overwhelming bulk of funding in the education system is now devolved directly to schools, thanks to changes brought about by this Government and the last Government. Comparatively little is now held by education authorities. That means that schools, head teachers, staff and governors are in a central and powerful position in determining policy on the ground, because they control the purse strings.

Climate Change Bill [HL]

House again in Committee.
	Clause 1 [The target for 2050]:

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out Secretary of State and insert Prime Minister

Lord Redesdale: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 65, 79, 88 as well; each is substantially in the same spirit as Amendment No. 4. Many noble Lords have stated that the Bill is unique, and therefore sets a precedent. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is the convention that securing the target and being responsible for it being met is dealt with by the Secretary of State of whichever department is in charge of the target. However, as the Minister said on the previous group of amendments, the problem is that this issue touches every department. From Defra to the Ministry of Defence, there is not a department that will not have to deal with it in a ministerial capacity, and on an individual basis, each department will have to look carefully at how it deals with its carbon allocation and reduces it.
	We are talking about a 60 per cent reduction at the moment; further amendments propose an 80 per cent reduction of carbon dioxins from the 1990 levels. We should not underestimate the complexity of reaching that level. It is a 60 or 80 per cent reduction not just in the generation of electricity, but in use of carbon for every one of usindividually and personallyevery company in the country and every department. That will be extremely difficult, because it will cover everythingflights, transportation, heating, lighting, the way we build and manage our homes, and the type of food we eat and where it comes from.
	The issue should not be looked at just in this country. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the first carbon war, in Darfur, although some other regions have been affected. John Howard might be the first prime ministerial casualty, as the election in Australia was fought on the basis of the drought. The fundamental underlying feature of that drought was climate change, which brought about its severity. Is it conceivable that a Secretary of Stateat the moment, I believe that it is the Secretary of State from Defra, but the Minister can say whether it could move to another departmentwill have the clout and ability to impose incredibly strict and harsh limits and regimes on every aspect of government and individual life? That will not be the case. The buck has to stop with the Prime Minister.
	It will not be too long before each Prime Minister who comes into office will be judged to a degree by a significant proportion of the electorate on their ability to reduce carbon and mitigate the effects of climate change, which will become all too apparent for every one of us. We only have to look at the summer, when the Environment Agency became the fifth emergency service, defending infrastructure such as electricity stations, to see how each department will have to come to the fore. Of course, we have just had a Statement on schooling. I was at a meeting last night discussing the Severn barrage with a large company that deals with large contracts. The point made clearly to me was that the worst culprit of any client in thinking about mitigating the amount of carbon in any project at the moment was the Government. The cultural change has to take place from top to bottom, and only the Prime Minister can achieve that aim.
	The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised this issue at Second Reading as one of concern to the Conservative Benches. I very much hope that they will support the amendment, and that it will command consensus throughout the Committee. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I support the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the amendment. I raised the point at Second Reading. There are a number of reasons why the Prime Minister ought to be the person responsible. The noble Lord said that the issue covered every department. Of course he is right, but the most recent figuresthose of 2005regarding the share of carbon emissions from each sector show that energy industries produced 37.4 per cent, road transport 21.6 per cent, other industries 17.8 per cent and residential 14.9 per cent. If a department is to be in charge of climate change, it ought to be the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, not Defra.
	There is another reason. We had a debate about agriculture last week, and I raised a couple of issues then. One is that Defra is still not trusted fully by the farming community. It has not got back to the level of trust and support that it had once. For that department to be put in charge of climate change is wrong. The second issue is the pressure that Defra is under. During the debate, I asked the Minister about the number of staff changes. I understand that there will be 300 redundancies; the best people are leaving Defra. I did not get a reply to any of my questions. Perhaps now would be a good chance for the Minister to tell us what the future of Defra is. How many staff will it lose? What incentives are there to retain the best people? How many people will be committed to the climate change division? What is the effect on other parts of his department?
	That is a major thing. Perhaps Defra is capable, but if it is not and cannot give all the resources needed to make this Bill work, then it is far better that the Prime Minister takes the reins right at the beginning, and that we are absolutely clear about that.

The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: Although I have already indicated why this is important, there is another feature worth consideration. Whenever I go into a school, issues about the future of the world are at the top of the agenda of the people who want to talk to me. It is not purely a local issue for them. If the Prime Minister were to acknowledge this and accept some responsibility publicly, he would score enormously highly with those teenagers who will have to live with the consequences of what we decide. They probably mind about it much more than any of the rest of us. They are invested in it in a remarkable way, both in intellectual appreciation of what must be done and their persistence in holding to account those whom they think might be able to do something about it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is not in his place to hear me say this. It would be an enormously important signal to the young of the country if the Prime Minister were persuaded that this was an important part of what he should personally head up.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am pleased to speak to the amendments. Once again, although there is some difference in detail, there is strong agreement upon them. Some are jointly tabled by the Liberal Democrats and ourselves, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury has suggested that he has a similar approach.
	I emphasise that we are not seeking to remove the responsibility of the Secretaries of State of Defra or any other government department. Amendments Nos. 65, 79 and 88, to which we have put our name, serve a specific purpose: to put the Prime Minister in pole position on particular issues. The first is for him to read the annual report of the Committee on Climate Change and present it to Parliament. Similarly, the final statement of the budgetary period should be presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister. The final 2050 statement should be presented by the Prime Minister to Parliament for approval. The reason behind this, as has been said by other noble Lords, is that climate change is a cross-departmental issue. It must be considered where all policy decisions are being made, not just in Defra. The brief of the Secretary of State for Defra is simply not broad enough given the magnitude of the issue. The only person whose brief cuts across all departments of state is the Prime Minister. Ultimately, his Government implement this law.
	To ensure that the Climate Change Bill will take all policy decisions into account, we must make sure that it has bite. The only penalty for missing targets in the Bill is political. Putting it centre stage and having the Prime Minister making the reports ensures that the penalty, as it were, is identified with the Prime Minister of the Government, so that he cannot just blame a Secretary of State and send him out to this country's political equivalent of some Siberian power station.

Lord Rooker: What is the equivalent?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: A number of noble Lords have known what it is like to be blamed for government decisions. They have found themselves on the Back Benches, although I am very pleased to see that one of them has returned to Front-Bench duties recently.
	I believe that we are correct in making the Prime Minister responsible. It puts him or her centre-stage as regards responsibilities in this matter. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response, so that we are not forced to move an amendment on Report.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I draw the Committee's attention to the speech of the Prime Minister on climate change at the Foreign Press Association on 27 November, when he said:
	Every new policy will be examined for its impact on carbon emissionsnot just those which reduce emissions, but those which increase them. And where emissions rise in one sector, we will have to achieve corresponding falls in another.
	That was a clear recognition of the fact that there is an inter-sectoral trade-off at the very heart of this legislation. The relationship between one department and another is critical to the Bill on an agenda which will probably dominate the next 100 years. I would have thought that any British Prime Minister would want to take on overall responsibility for seeing through this agenda, knowing that it is only the Prime Minister who can manage an inter-sectoral role interdepartmentally and also as regards wider policy governing various sectors. That paragraph of the speech continues:
	The legislation will enact our target of achieving a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 60 per cent by 2050 through domestic and international action.
	Again, inherent in that is the proposition that many of the great decisions on these issues will be taken at international conferencesprobably summits in the endwhen we hit crises. I argue that it is only a prime minister with a central co-ordinating rolethe important role of seeing through this policywho would have day-to-day contact with this moving agenda and would be able to represent fully the interests of the United Kingdom in those conditions. With that in mind, I strongly support the amendment, although I understand it is unique.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I think this group of amendments is entirely misconceived. When I was a Minister, there were many occasions when I spoke to other Ministers in other departmentsforeign affairs, environment and so onand I do not think that anyone who had any experience of government would support this view. Here the Secretary of State speaks for the whole Government and inevitably, if the matter touched on the interests of another department, the Secretary of State would confer with that department's Minister.
	Of course, this issue is not entirely unprecedented, as I have already indicated. Quite often Bills or Acts ensure that one department is closely in touch with another. The OppositionLiberal Democrats and Conservatives alikeare suggesting that the Prime Minister should be presidential. Fortunately, he is not.
	As I have said before, this proposal is misconceived. Of course, the Prime Minister addresses this and many other things in his speeches; he has to, as he is presiding over the whole Government. It is inevitable that the Prime Minister should be associated with the success of each Secretary of State or Minister. I am bemused that this amendment is being considered. It is not worthy of the attention of anybody who has served in government. I thank heaven that we do not have a president at this stage.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I hesitate to contradict the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, because of his huge and unique experience. However, the difference in the tenor and nature of the challenge facing us means that we should, perhaps, cast off past practice and look at the challenge of the future. Delivering this process in the period between now and 2050 will be incredibly difficult.
	Although I would not wish to undermine Defraor the Minister, who will undoubtedly have to do the legwork on behalf of the whole Government to ensure that all departments are truly locked into what, if we are to succeed, will be a unique and unprecedented effortit would, nevertheless, be a real sign to the whole nation and to all aspects of Government if the Prime Minister were to commit to making the annual progress report to Parliament. That would put this issue, its unique nature and the difficulties of achieving it in its proper place.

Lord Puttnam: I support this amendment, which came out of our Joint Committee. I will also take a minute to unbemuse my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I understand the practicalities and I am sure the Minister will set them out when he answers, but I beg him to consider this: every Member of the Committee has had some personal experience of the dismal problems involved in trying to press a coherent policy across government. Every one of us has some scar across our backs from attempting to do that. It is not true to say that Government act in a coherent and sensible wayif only!
	I suggest that this is a unique Bill with unique challenges. It requires a unique resolution, and I cannot see that anyone but the Prime Minister could press each department to do its job as defined by this legislation.

Baroness Byford: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has just said. I have never had the privilege of serving in government; I would like to have done that, but have not. Yet, given the pressures on each department in the current economic climate, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is certainly confident to think that all departments will work as oneand will have the finances to support something so hugely important in terms of what Bill tries to deliver. That confidence is wishful thinking.
	The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has put his finger on it; without doubt, the whole Committee wants the Bill to succeed. But who makes the ultimate decision? If a department is financially struck, which I am sure happens regularlyit did so in the day of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and it continues to do sosomeone has to be overlooking the system and saying, Look, this is what we must do. We must give priority to the aims and achievements within this Bill. I certainly have reservations about one individual department, or the commission itself, once it is set up, being able to do that, which is why I particularly support these amendments.

The Earl of Selborne: I rise briefly to add my support. Whenever you have a precedentI am not sure whether or not this is a precedent, but it is certainly unusualthere are always those who say, This smacks of presidential government, or some other obnoxious connotation. The real connotation is that the Bill deals with issues that transcend most of those with which Secretaries of State are expected to deal. We all recognise that for Secretary of State you can read every government department. That is not the issue. The issue is whether we wish to give a signal that this is an issue that has international leadership connotations as well those of leadership within our Government. To write the name of the Prime Minister into the Bill, as is suggested in the amendment, is an eminently sensible proposal.

Lord Rooker: I must say at the outset that we do not think that this is a very sensible idea. I take the point made by the noble Earl about sending a signal. I am not going to gloss over the Rolls-Royce efficiency of decision-making in government. As my noble friend Lord Puttnam said, sometimes when things happen you think, Heaven above, we are the Government. We are supposed to be able to do things better than this. It is not completely a Rolls-Royce machine, but we must be realistic.
	I say to the Committee in all sincerity that of all the amendments that could conceivably be made to the Bill by your Lordships' House, this is the one above all others that I would have no difficulty whatever in advising the other place to chuck out. There would not be any difficulty about that. There are other amendments on which it would be very difficult for the majority party in the other place to go against your Lordships' House; on this one, there would be no difficulty.
	This is not a challenge, I am not looking to extend this debate, but I also have to say if there were a succession of ex-Ministers from the Cross Benches, the Conservative Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and these Benches saying that this was a good practical idea, based on their experience and knowledge of Whitehall, I might take a different view. The fact is that the only ex-Minister who has spoken, my noble friend, saidI see the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, nodding, but I will not put words into his mouththat this is not a good practical idea.

The Earl of Caithness: I was a Minister for 10 years.

Lord Rooker: No wonder. I cast no aspersions on the noble Earl; I had forgotten about that. There again, he went on about Defra more than anyone else. I will come to that point in a moment.
	The amendment would not be sending a signal. If we transfer the powers in the Bill from the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister, he would be required to deal with meeting the 2050 target, with setting and meeting the budgets and with laying the emissions statement for each budgetary period and for the year 2050 before Parliament. The practical effect of the amendment is, frankly, difficult to define. In reality, the Prime Minister could delegate the duty to deal with all those things to departments, led by Defra but along with others. The whole thing is preposterous, given the staff numbers in No. 10. There is not the capacity there. No. 10 might be very large compared to previous Governments, but it is nowhere near as large as the secretariat of most departments. It is simply not resourced to carry out those matters. Therefore, it would fall to the Secretaries of State in the various departments. There is a real problem.
	I understand the point about sending a signal. I thought that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours he was going to come to the exact opposite conclusion to the one that he reached. He made the point that the Prime Minister is taking the lead on this issue. He cited the 27 November speech. Anyone who reads the 19 November speech on the calls for changes relating to climate change covering the whole gamut of international and domestic policy in terms of targets and how the Government are operating under his leadership will see that he is taking a lead on this crucial issue.
	Therefore, we do not accept the unusuality, if I can use that word, of putting that in the legislation. There are bits of legislation where the Prime Minister is mentioned in making various appointments and in questions of national security. He cannot meaningfully take on the detailed responsibility, which is what is implied in the amendment. He would end up delegating it.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The amendments to which we have put our name limit the responsibility of the Prime Minister to the particular element that we think is important: to present the report to Parliament, so that he is accountable before Parliament. It is well understood that it is not for him to be setting the strategy or anything else, but the strategy must be accounted for to Parliament by the Prime Minister. I do not think that that is placing an overwhelming burden on his time. It just puts the responsibility where it belongs, across departments and in the hands of the Prime Minister of the country.

Lord Rooker: I fully accept that point. I have no knowledge of future plans, but I suspect that, given the nature and detail of the strategic speeches that the Prime Minister is making on the issue outside Parliament, from time to time he may deliver statements inside Parliament. To put a statutory duty on him, with all the detail implied, would be a big mistake. I am not arguing from a presentational point of view about sending signals. I freely admit that there are parts of the Bill where we might be able to look at ways of demonstrating that the Government as a whole are committed on this issue. That is the central point: there is a fear that Secretary of State means one department working in a silo. Cabinet governmentas people understand the Cabinet sub-committeeswill give instructions to Secretaries of State across the whole of Whitehall. That is usually done behind closed doors, which I fully accept does not send a signal outside. However, we are happy to look at where that can be done to show that the Government as a whole have a grip on this, as I implied when answering the intervention of the right reverend Prelate on the earlier amendment. All the departments in the whole of WhitehallI do not know a department that is notare involved in working on the Bill. It has to come together.
	Your Lordships' House prides itself that, at Question Time, the Questions are to the Government, not to departments. That causes considerable difficulty with many Questions, simply because they cross more than one department. There is mayhem in Whitehall when two or three departments have to agree an answercompared to the other place, that is the reality, as those who have answered Questions in this place would find out. One Minister has to answer. If Ministers sometimes start talking about their department, they are corrected by your Lordships: You are answering for the Government, not the department. That is exactly my position presently. Although I am Defra, which is the lead department on the issue, I am answering for all departments. That is the same for the Prime Minister.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Could I point my noble friend to the issue of national security? We have defence, foreign affairs and the Home Department all accountable, as I understand it, through the Prime Minister to Parliament. It is the Prime Minister who signs off reports from the Intelligence and Security Committeeit is not the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence.

Lord Rooker: As I said a few minutes ago, there are areas of legislation where the Prime Minister is referred to. The Prime Minister is responsible, because of accidents of history, for some odd appointmentsI hope that noble Lords know what I mean by that. In other words, we are not saying that the Prime Minister is not referred to in legislation. We are not saying that, because that would be wrongthere are many occasions. The nature of this is that we are quite happy to look at whether we can modify the Bill so that, from a presentational point of view, it clearly signals to everyone that the Government are responsible and that we have a plan. That plan will also be approved by Parliament so, in that sense, we are all in this together, across the generations and across the Floor. However, putting the onus on the Prime Minister in this clause is a big mistake. We are quite happy to look at the presentational aspects in other parts of the Bill, but not to put detailed, onerous requirements on the Prime Minister, which he would only farm out to the civil servants of other departments. There is nothing to stop him taking a lead and, in both those speeches that he made outside the House, he was taking a lead on this issue. In fact, he has been criticised, I understand, for making it clear that there have to be options for power generation, simply because of climate change. What do some of the NGOs do? They go to the lawyers to say that he has pre-empted a consultation. He is giving a lead on the issue. He is doing that now. Modifying the Bill is not required for that to continue.

Lord Redesdale: There is a slight issue here. The fundamental point was not to raise the issue of the Prime Minister being a figurehead for the Government. The nature of the amendments that we tabledthere are obviously certain differences with the other amendmentsis that this is not just a presentational issue, but comes to the heart of what the Bill is about. We cannot pretend that the Prime Minister will not be seen by the country as being responsible for meeting the targets. We cannot then pass it off to a Secretary of State. The Minister has said that of course the Prime Minister will not do the work himself. I quite agree. However, we have the major problem of different departments with different objectives. A classic example was the decision for the third runway at Heathrow: DBERRor DEBRISmade one decision, about the economic impact, while Defra would make another, about whether we should build a third runway at Heathrow. There are going to be major issues throughout government, between departments.
	On the transport issue, I was talking to a transport expert, who said, The definition of a necessary journey is one that I take; the definition of an unnecessary journey is one you take. The big problem is that each of the departments is going to have major difficulties. We already see this in the ETSthe aviation industry is interested in signing up, because it can buy credits from other industries. The problem, taking that to its logical conclusion, is that the aviation industry would take up all the carbon units for every industry, if it carried on buying up those credits. Therefore, there would be none left for power generation or for other industries. The issue is not just presentational. If individuals write their manifestos about how they are going to run the Government in the future, they will have to make sure that every single one of the policies that they sign their parties up to meet those objectives. Otherwise, we are greenwashing in this Bill. That point has been made about the Bill.
	I would have been absolutely amazed if the Minister had said that he would wholeheartedly accept the amendment, but he has said that there are some areas that he would like to discuss. I would like to talk to him and to his department and officials, perhaps with the Conservative Opposition, because if they put their name to the Bill, we might look forward to an amendment that will meet some of the provisions we have set out. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out ensure and insert develop policies and take measures, including the setting of five year targets and budgets, with the object of ensuring

The Earl of Caithness: The amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. My first duty is to send the apologies of my noble friend to the Committeehe is in Moscow with Sub-Committee C and not even he, in his brilliance, can be in two places at once.
	We come to an important part of the Bill, the first clause. Clause 1(1) reads:
	It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 60% lower than the 1990 baseline.
	The word that we wish to delete is ensure, replacing it with the words on the Marshalled List.
	The Joint Committee took evidence on this issueour comments are in paragraphs 104 to 117 of our report. As said on many occasions and by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who chaired the Committee, this is a unique Bill. When we questioned those who gave evidence on Wednesday 16 May about this duty to ensure, we found that it is a unique clause, which has never been used in a Bill before. Mr Wilson, who is a director of Cambrensis and a barrister at its environmental law unit, told us that, in his opinion, the clause might add a little to public pressure and organise public opinion, but he went on to say that:
	it is difficult to enforce it in a conventional way.
	Professor Forsyth said that he was unaware of any other example of a Bill,
	concerned with the setting of targets.
	In considering our conclusions, the members of the committee discussed how we should try to strengthen the Bill and how we should impose a duty on the Secretary of State or the Prime Ministerit is still the Secretary of State nowin a way that is enforceable in law. In his evidence, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth put it very well. He said:
	The problem is not one of target setting, nor of embodying a target in statute, but rather the imposition of a duty to meet a target, the fulfilment of which relies on circumstances beyond the control of the body vested with that duty.
	That is the nub of the problem.
	We have a duty that binds the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State, yet it is practically unenforceable. That is why my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and I have proposed our wordingin order to put some meat on this important bone. We do not want to dilute the importance of this clause or the importance of the Bill. We want wording that is as equally strong as the word ensure, but which also enables the Secretary of State to be held to account in a proper way, rather than through just public opinion or, as the Minister said, in a way that puts pressure on the civil servants through the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code. I beg to move.

The Earl of Onslow: I support this amendment. I have talked to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell who asked me to enter my tuppence-ha'pennyworth. The Secretary of State is Mr Hilary Benn. His grandfather was, I believe, Secretary of State for India in 1927. His father was a distinguished Minister in the Labour Government in the 1960s. There is an element of the fact that the Benn family are becoming hereditary Members of the House of Commons, which has an element of irony about it. I believe that Hilary Benn's son also is standing as a Member of the House of Commons, so the tradition continues.
	I suppose that it is possible that a Mr Bennor perhaps a right honourable Lord Stansgate KCMG or somethingwill be Prime Minister at the time that this duty is imposed on the Secretary of State. Those are probably the unique circumstances in which someone could be held responsible in 2050 for actions taken by others between now and then. For the sake of argument, let us assume that this passion for wind power turns out to be what a lot of the wind power sceptics say that it will be in not reducing CO2 emissions. I believe that there is recent evidence of that in Denmark. We know that wind power cannot be used all the time because either the wind is too strong or too weak. Consequently, it has to be backed up with other forms of electricity generation.
	If the policies adopted by the present Mr Benn as Secretary of State are the wrong policies, and they do not affect CO2 in the way which we all wish and all know to be quintessentially essential, how can Mr Benn juniorprobably the present Mr Benn's great-grandsonor whoever is Secretary of State in 2050 be held responsible? Of course, we should have something of planning in the Bill. This goes a long way towards it. Perhaps it would be better to have a declaratory clause. I know that modern legislators do not like them, but they have been present in other legislation. I have been trying to show the difficulty and illogicality of putting this wording in the Bill. I therefore support this amendment completely.

Lord Puttnam: I, too, support the amendment. We probably devoted more time to this matter in the Joint Committee than to any other single issue. We certainly took more expert evidence on it. I started as a sceptic, but I became increasingly convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, were correct in their position. Common sense tells me that the words,
	with the object of ensuring,
	are far more sensible than the claim to ensure something which in reality it is impossible to ensure. I urge the Government to take this amendment very seriously.

Baroness Billingham: I, too, support the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Puttnam has said, we spent hours deliberating this issue, which was at the heart of much of our debate. This amendment strengthens the purpose and the objectives behind the Bill, which will be better for it.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: In the debate on the previous amendment, the Minister said that he was putting words into my mouth when I nodded in agreement about the foolishness of replacing the words Secretary of State with Prime Minister. I was nodding in agreement because we have collective government in this country: we have Cabinet government. The Bill states:
	It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 60% lower than the 1990 baseline.
	That drives a coach and horses through our whole constitutional approach. No Government can bind their successors. A Secretary of State may be a member of an Administration that has a target to reduce,
	the net UK carbon account for the year 2050,
	so that it is 60 per cent lower. But, as the Bill is worded, the Secretary of State is put in an impossible position. He or she will not know what their successors will do. Far from offering any radical change to the nature of the Bill, the amendment puts into common sense the position of a Minister, as my noble friend has argued.
	I also worry a little about the use of legislation to make declaratory stands on policy. In the other place, I was involved, as I am sure was the noble Lord, in taking tours around the Aye and No lobbies. In one of the lobbies one can see the legislation that has been passed. I was always rather embarrassed that there were far more shelves for the period when we were in office, never mind for the modern period, than for the previous 150 years. I repudiate the idea of using legislation to make a point, to highlight an issue or to set a target. I worry that this no doubt well intended Bill is being used for this purpose, which does not seem to me to be a proper purpose. The first line of the Bill falls down in that respect and the amendment does much to improve it.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I do not seek in any egocentric way to interpolate a personal note, but it follows on the speech by my noble friend Lord Onslow. The building of the British Library took only 20 years and not the 43 years for which we are legislating. But there were a number of Secretaries of State during the building of the British Library and I was one of them. In 1994, when it had been 16 years in the building, I was summoned before Mr Kaufman's Select Committee. About two-thirds of the way through the committee, after a great deal of evidence had been considered, Mr Kaufman said, Now, Secretary of State, we really must come to a conclusion. This is a very bad business. Who is responsible?. I knew perfectly well that if I said anything other than, Mr Kaufman, you know perfectly well where the responsibility lies: the Secretary of State is responsible and, therefore, I am, the hearing would go on for at least another three-quarters of an hour beyond the time that was set for us to finish it. It was therefore much simpler to say, Mr Kaufman, you know perfectly well who is responsible, and that is myself.
	Three or four years later I came across a paragraph in a history of the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 written by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in which he described the efforts of the Treasury to so hold down the detail of the building of the British Library that, as he said in his concluding sentence, given what had been achieved in terms of controlling expenditure on this item, if there had been the slightest economic quiver in the next 20 years, it would be a miracle if the British Library were concluded before the end of the century. I say to my noble friend Lord Onslow that the consequence of that particular remark was that, when Her Majesty the Queen opened the British Library in 1998, we had achieved it before the end of the century and I was in the happy but wholly accidental position of taking the credit for achieving what was in fact a miracle. The fact remains that although I said what I did in 1994, it is difficult to see how the Secretary of State at a particular moment is responsible for the whole 20-year span of the business. The Minister would be doing your Lordships' House a service if he gave full consideration to this amendment which would to make the situation slightly less redolent of Alice in Wonderland than its present wording.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I presume from the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that the debate that took place in the Joint CommitteeI do not know as I was not on itwas about the words,
	setting of five-year targets and budgets,
	and not about the words,
	develop policies and take measures.
	I see no difficulty with the words,
	develop policies and take measures,
	but I do see some difficulty with the words,
	setting of five-year targets and budgets.
	What is the position then if they have to be amended in some way? The words,
	setting of five-year targets and budgets
	are locked into the Bill.
	Perhaps if my noble friend is minded to accept this amendment or consider it for Report he might have in mind my comments on the setting of five-year targets and budgets and the problems that might arise.

The Duke of Montrose: My noble friend has done a great service by raising this topic and we have benefited from the wisdom of quite a few Members and their experience in Government. The amendment helps to focus on what the duties of the Secretary of State might amount to; it will be interesting to see whether it is possible to tempt the Minister to tell us the Government's view of what the Secretary of State's duty might amount to.
	People have been looking at what problems might face a future MinisterPrime Minister Benn or otherwisebut the plight one should be thinking of is that of a Secretary of State who is in office in 2045. If there has been slippage in the previous five-year plans, he may be faced with a policy to reduce emissions dramatically to still meet the targets we are setting for 2050. He might have to close down whole sectors of industry. There will have to be fairly rigorous enforcement of each of the five-year plans proposed. The brief that we received from the CBI mentions a survey by McKinsey saying it will be quite difficult to meet the interim target of 26 per cent by 2020. In the natural progression of things, trying to serve at the front end is the easiest bit. We are relying on major scientific breakthroughs if we are expecting to save very much in the later stages.
	We have, of course, set an even higher challenge by suggesting that the Secretary of State will have to try and ameliorate the average global temperature. The Secretary of State may not be able to give up his efforts even if he hits the target of 60 per cent as laid down in the Bill if other emerging economies do not also make an effort. There would have to be something more than the present participation of emerging economies such as India and China under the Kyoto treaty joint initiative. That has already achieved considerable savings but considerably more will be needed if the Secretary of State is to be able to give up even on these targets.

Lord Teverson: We welcome the spirit of this amendment but in detail, as we will see later, we disagree with the concept of the five-year budget which we think is too long.

Lord Rooker: I hope what I have to say will be accepted as positive. This issue was raised at Second Reading, and I fully accept that I am not familiar with all the detail raised in the Joint Committee, but I am not sure whether it has helped us for the next stage. It seems to have been thought that the intention of the amendment was to address the perceived lack of enforceability of this requirement or duty to meet the targets and budgets in the Bill. It was not drafted for that purpose, as I said, probably inadequately, on Second Reading, and as was alluded to by the noble Earlalthough I thought as he sat down that he was making the opposite point from the same information.
	The intention was to attempt to change the infrastructure culture in Government, which is quite important if one is to transcend departments and Governments, as long as there is an acceptance that we are legislating for decades. Governments come and go and each is sovereign. We were trying to find a way to achieve behavioural change in Whitehall, in the Civil Service as much as among Ministers. That is crucial. I cannot say that I agree with them but examples were given of different departments' attitudes to energy generation and transport, as though the departments were fiefdoms in their own right, quite independent of Government and with their own messages. That may have been case in the past and there may still be elements of that but we are attempting to use the law to change the institutional behaviour in Whitehall through the Civil Service Code and the Ministerial Code.
	The dilemma would be if two or three departments worked on an issue, each with a substantially different attitude. The requirement of the law is pretty important as far the Civil Service and our system of Government are concerned. If they ignore the law, or worse still, if they go in the opposite direction to the law as set out by this clause, there would be major problems and judicial review could follow. So the intention is to give a constitutional significance and to permeate the attitude in Whitehall that there is a duty to ensure the outcome. We believeand I stand to be corrected on this by lawyersthat the amendment would in practice weaken the duty on the Secretary of State. If you focus on the process, it would be possible to do your best, stay within the budget and end up complying with the duty because you thought it was the right policy. In the words of the amendment, you tried,
	to develop policies and take measures ... with the object of ensuring.
	So you could satisfy the requirements of the law and completely fail. It comes down to intention and lack of enforceability. I fully admit, as I said at Second Reading, that the purpose of putting this in the Bill was to change the behaviour of the Civil Service in Whitehall and, through that, to change the behaviour of Ministers. That is the central objective.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: ps I can help the Minister with an analogy. When we were in government, we had an objective to reduce the proportion of the GDP that was taken in taxation. We were not particularly successful, but it was an objective. Had we passed a law that said that it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the amount taken by the state in taxation, I doubt very much that it would have influenced future Governments. This is declaratory legislation, and placing such a duty on a Secretary of State or a Chancellor, who might be faced by a change in economic conditions or a shock, might put him in conflict with his other duties and it may be impossible for him to achieve it. In this case, he would not know whether he had achieved it until 2050, so why will it change the culture? There is always a reason for people to make a different case.

Lord Rooker: I fully accept that, and I am grateful for the noble Lord's practical examples. I am not saying that this is perfect. It is open to a future Government to tell Parliament that they want to change this requirement and to give reasons that explain the weakening of the situation. It would be up to another Government to do that. However, the Committee on Climate Change, if set up under the Bill when it becomes an Act, will be an important body that, from the point of view of public accountability and the court of public opinion, will have a role in, and an attitude towards, this. People would see what was happening, so there would be pressure. No one is going to say that one policy over a period of years may be seen to be more practical than others.

The Earl of Onslow: One thing is seriously worrying me. What happens in, say, 2035 when there has been a major slippage in target achievement? How will the law be enforced? That is what we would all like to know. How can you enforce this? What happens if you go to court? That, I think, is what none of us understands.

Lord Rooker: As I said, this is part of how we will ensure that the targets are met. This is an incredibly difficult issue, as we explained on Second Reading. There is no perfect answer. It is not pie in the sky to say that we want to ensure that the policies are taking place or that we want the Secretary of State to ensure that at least 60 per cent is achieved. In the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, the Select Committee in the other place stated:
	By institutionalising the targets, the political pressure to achieve them will be increased.
	The Government of the day will be open to public scrutiny because of that. That is not a penalty in the sense that you break the speed limit and you get a fine, but that aspect is crucial. We do not rest our whole case on that, but it is part of building the pressure on Governments and Secretaries of State to deliver.

Lord Vinson: We are trying to introduce a clause that is totally unenforceable, but there is another major factor. We are setting up the whole Bill as an exemplar to the rest of the world of how to try to reduce carbon output. There is nothing wrong with that, but after we have done this for a decade or so, and the British public have got fed up wearing the economic hair shirt that will be put on them, see the rest of the world producing massive quantities of carbon, and see our efforts making no impression at all on the global climate and very little impression as an example, they will not want to wear this hair shirt for long. A Secretary of State, far from being under pressure to tighten the targets, is much more likely to be under pressure to loosen them. That is a very important element.

Lord Rooker: I remember the noble Lord's contribution on Second Reading. I was constrained from commenting on everyone's speech at the time, but I thought that his speech was a little more revolutionary than he actually thought. He gave some examples, which I thought were quite practical, of what would happen in the future and he talked about the need for change. He approached the matter from a different direction, but I respected the point. I was going to say that I was stuck for time and I did not want to accuse him of being a revolutionary, but he made some quite revolutionary points on Second Reading. He is absolutely right: if that situation arose, one can imagine the debates that would arise in the country, as well as in both Houses of Parliament, and the pressure on various Secretaries of State to make a policy change; in other words, to make change through legislation. It would be quite substantial if we got to that point. I am not saying that that will not happen; I am saying that we are setting out with the best intentions to give a lead and to be the first nation to put such detail into our legal framework. I think that one other country has partial legal requirements, but not to the extent that we have here.
	As I said, we believe that that aspect of what the EFRA Committee said in the other place is quite crucial, but we can see no other way in which to achieve that cultural change within our system of government than by putting the duties into law. That is the reality. You cannot get the equivalent effect without using the law. Civil servants, advisers to government and Ministers have to be reminded from time to time, as we all are, that you cannot do something, or that you cannot not do something, because you are going outside the law. We know the consequences of that, and I doubt that there has ever been a Minister in office who has not been reminded that they are expected to follow the law. There are degrees of discretion, but this must be looked at in the constitutional sense rather than in the sense that you have gone over the traffic lights and there is a fine. The objective of putting this into legislation in this way is to make that cultural and behavioural change in the Civil Service and consequently in government. I have no doubt that we will come back to this; as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours says, there is more than one way in which to do this.
	The choice of words in the amendment to replace two words makes the amendment rather long, although, as I said, I am not saying that everything is perfect. The Committee knows what the Government's intention is, and was when we drafted the legislation. We may not have interpreted the purpose of the amendment in the way in which many noble Lords who have spoken tonight have done, but we will reflect on it in due course.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: If the Minister is the Secretary of State and the Bill has been passed and has become law, what does he have to do in the next five years to fulfil that duty? Is it a matter of taking the timescale and dividing it in a linear way? How would he determine whether he was complying with the clause? He has not answered my noble friend's question about what would happen to him if he did not. I am more concerned about how a Secretary of State actually organises himself to comply with the duty and to be seen to comply with it. That is a very difficult duty to have thrust on you.

Lord Rooker: Yes, it is. I fully appreciate that. To comply with the duty, the Secretary of State must first inaugurate with his colleagues across government a range of policiesthere is no single policy initiative, and I do not think that anyone is claiming that there isthat lead to achieving the target of at least 60 per cent, as in the current legislation. Those policies must be tested independently by the Committee on Climate Change and the court of public opinion, and the Secretary of State must make the necessary changes. We did say on Second Reading that the consequences of climate change, and the consequences of the Bill, will change how society operates and how we live. They will affect everyone in the country. As Stern said, the earlier we do this, the less the disruption and the cost will be. The later we do this, the greater the disruption and the cost will be.

The Earl of Onslow: A thought has just crossed my mind. Presumably, the Secretary of State would be open to judicial review. Someone could take him to court if they thought that he was not doing what the Act tells him to do. Is that a satisfactory answer? We are all on the same side as the Government on this, but I simply do not understand the clause, which seems to be a terrible muddle. That is all. I know what the Minister is trying to do.

Lord Rooker: I may be explaining it inadequately. The answer is probably yes, depending on the policies that are being proposed. As I say, this is not a question of going over a red light or the speed limit and getting a fine. That is not the kind of penalty that is implied. The penalty is, if you like, parliamentary opinion, the court of public opinion, and the opinion of business. There has to be a degree of certainty about the policies.
	This is not just about individuals: businesses will have to change. A lot of businesses will grow. Businesses that do not exist at the moment will make a lot of money and there will be more investment because of the changes that will happen. There has to be a degree of certainty and confidence. That will only be tested by the operation of the individual policies. From time to time, governments are open to judicial review, but the case would have to be made.
	We recognise that this is a difficult issue. There is no perfect answer, but I hope I have explained why we drafted the Bill in this way. We are quite happy to see whether there is another form of words that satisfies the opinions of the Committee and the Joint Committee, and describes what we want to do, which is to get that change inside governmentthat is what this is about. This is not necessarily a change for Ministers. It is about the advice that Ministers receive and the way they operate on it, bearing in mind that they are required to stay within the law. That is the fundamental point: if there were no requirement to stay within the law it would not be so meaningful. The advice that they receive is pretty important in that respect.

The Earl of Caithness: I am extremely grateful to all Committee Members who have taken part in this debate from all sides of the Chamber. I believe that we are all pushing on the same door: it is a question of getting that door open in the right way to make sense of the Bill. The Minister gave a very full reply and I was particularly grateful for his penultimate sentence when he said he would look again to see whether there were better wording.
	I want to press him on an earlier point. He said that if a department went against the wording of the Bill as amended there would be major problems. Could he identify what those major problems are and what are the solutions, because that might help us? He also said that the amendment would weaken the Bill as drafted. Yes, I admitted that right at the beginning. It was one of the problems that the committee toyed with. We could not get the right wording because we felt that whatever we came up weakened the Bill. But we also wantedand this is clear in our recommendationsto make this enforceable. If we use the word ensure when Britain will be the lead country in the world, any country can turn round and say, You can't ensure it. This is all just a pretence, spin, a sham. That is what is wrong with the word ensure. It cannot be enforced. It sets a very bad example both nationally and internationally.
	We need to give a lead. We need to be able to set an example that others can follow. If we are to do that, we have to get this part of the Bill absolutely right. The wording is crucial. I know that the Minister listened to everybody in the Committee and there is a common theme here that this part of the Bill needs to be looked at. Has the Minister any further points he would like to make on the major problems? Could he come back to me at another stage?

Lord Rooker: I have answered as fully as I can this particular debate. I have no doubt that, at other stages of the Bill, I will do the same again, and we also have Report, but I have nothing further to say on this debate now.

The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps the Minister might write to me about the major problems and put a copy of his letter in the Library of the House because that would help us. Again, I thank all Members of the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out net UK carbon account and insert quantity of UK greenhouse gas emissions released to the atmosphere

Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister might be slightly relieved to hear that this is a probing amendment. We move from what I would call the hard intricacies of the practice of government in this country to the more ephemeral subject of leadership, to which the Government have pretensions on a global scale, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury has already mentioned.
	The Government wish to lead the world in the control of carbon emissions in order to limit global warming. That is certainly an ambition that we would all support, but in the first line we have yet another set of words that, in my view, are far weaker than they either should be or need to be. I read the net UK carbon account, not with despair but with horror.
	First, we should go through the background a little. We certainly do not lead the world at the present time. Other European countries are ahead of us in some regards. France is a unique country, curiously enough. In some ways it is fortunate for the whole world that its nuclear programme in the 1970s and 1980s is outwith the timing for Kyoto, which begins in 1990. France is unique because it is the only developed country in the world that I have seen that actually has a reduction plotted on a graph of its national carbon dioxide emissions. It is possible to go on to the internet and pull down the carbon performance of practically every economy in the world, and they are all plotted in graphs, which rise consistently, with the exception of France. With its nuclear programme in the 1970s the 1980s, France's carbon dioxide emissions diminished.
	One other country has a similar reductionRussia. But Russia achieved it through total economic collapse, which I do not think any of us would accept as a practical or sensible policy. Germany is way ahead of us in the field of microgeneration, because it has very effective lead-in prices. One could go on.
	This legislation is significant if we are to get the initiative into this country, but we have to walk the walk and not talk the talk, hence this particular wordingthe first line in the Bill, about which we keep arguing. Why do we have net UK carbon account? I accept that it is a commonly used phrase and it is easy to slip past it, but the implication is that we can offset some of our emissions by actions that we take in third-party countries. We can continue with carbon emissions by aiding others. Again, that is all very worthy, but it is shilly-shallying. In effect, wealthy countries can purchase the right to continue doing what we do by aiding other countries. In a global sense, I accept that that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but if we want to lead, we actually have to reduce our emissions ourselves. We have to get our emissions all the way down, so I object to that particular wording.
	I then looked to see what the Bill actually had to say about those words. It is worth doing that. If Committee Members look at Clause 70 on page 29, there is a list of defined expressions in the Billdefinitions. On page 30, line 20 directs us to Clause 22 (1), which states:
	Net UK carbon account
	(1) In this Part the 'net UK carbon account' for a period means the amount of net UK emissions of targeted greenhouse gases for the period
	(a) reduced by the amount of carbon units credited to the net UK carbon account for the period in accordance with regulations under this section, and
	(b) increased by the amount of carbon units that in accordance with such regulations are to be debited from the net UK carbon account for the period.
	(2) The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations about
	(a) the circumstances in which carbon units may be credited ... [or] debited ...
	(3) The regulations must contain provision for ensuring that carbon units that are credited to the net UK carbon account for a period cease to be available to offset other greenhouse gas emissions.
	and so on and so forth. I am afraid that, first of all, a rather shocking image came to mind: that of the Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, playing a rather politically incorrect game of croquet. I think she said at one stage during that game, When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean. The net UK carbon account, bearing in mind all this regulatory process to define it, comes into that category.
	Then I thought that perhaps I was being a little harsh, so I thought of a more appropriate metaphor. We are appointing a whole lot of people, all of whom are going to be involved in a marathon. The Government, and particularly the Climate Change Committee, are leading us to the start line, or whatever we finally call it when we get to that. Having got us more or less to the start line, the Government then appear to say that they have not quite decided where the finishing line is yet; that will be done by regulations at some point. That weakens the whole first line of the Bill.
	This first line of the Bill is going to be the one line that most people read, so we need it to be absolutely clear. Therefore, I have suggested that we use the greenhouse gas emissions wording of my amendment to improve clarity and, more importantly, for a psychological improvement in leadership. Of course it will, technically, be a slightly more difficult target to meet, but in the mysterious psychology of the world of leadershipif that is what the Government aspire toit will mean a great deal more for this country abroad than the present wording, however much that may be common practice in the relation to emissions and global warming. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: This amendment, which I like very much in principle, highlights one of the main dilemmas of this Bill: are we talking about de-carbonising the UK economy, or about doing some of that and then helping the rest of the world, which we count to our own benefit at the end of the day? Amendment No. 8, tabled by my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, looks at a similar issue. I shall reserve my longer remarks for that. In terms of leadership and our global position in negotiations, it is very important, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said, that it is seen as certain that we are looking to take the major hit in our own carbon emissions, rather than helping to stop others, noble cause though that may be. From these Benches we very much support the principle of this. We believe that there should be an ability to trade on the way towards these targets, but by 2050 we need to have met this as an economy ourselves, whatever route we take.

The Earl of Onslow: I support this amendment and I am minded to do so because of a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when summing up on the previous amendment. He said that several companies would make a lot of money out of this. If these harsh dutiesI use the word advisedlyare imposed on industry, society and government, which is what the Bill will do, somebody will come along and say that they can sell us a widget for one and sixpenceor 20, or whatever the sum may beto help us do this. There is going to be an immense incentive for companies to invest in things that will help us. That is how we are going to conquer this problem. We will conquer it more by investment and intelligent science than by exhortation. We must create the right climate for investment and intelligent science. That is why I support what my noble friend has proposed.

Earl Cathcart: We had some sympathy with this amendment, but it is a bit of a curate's egg; it is good only in parts. I had thought that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith was trying to include all the greenhouse gases in the target figure in line 1. I thought that was good. If the goal is to stop global warming, all contributions to the problem should be taken into account. The very first page of the Climate Change Bill says that it is a Bill to set a target for 2050 to reduce targeted greenhouse gas emissions. That is what I thought my noble friend meant. Having heard him, the bad part of the curate's egg is the whole bit about not netting off the emissions. I know that overseas carbon credits and what the right emissions netting-off ought to be will be discussed later. There is room for some sort of overseas carbon credits and, of course, carbon trading to be taken into account. I do not think we support that, because my noble friend does not include the word net. We think it should be in there, so that overseas carbon credits and carbon trading are taken into account.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I speak along the same lines as the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. This would strike at the very heart of the idea of getting emissions reductions where they are most effective and most cost-effective, driving a cart and horses through the whole idea of trading and lease cost. I am presuming what the outcome is, effectively, for example, in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. It would mean that every country in Europe would have to achieve the same level of reduction, even if that is nonsenseas it is indeed, even though the noble Lord shakes his head. If everybody in Europe agreed, there would be no net trading between the member states. Regardless of the position and circumstances of each country, they would all have to achieve the same reduction. That simply cannot make sense. It will, over time, be clear that some countries, some parts of countries and some industries will be able to secure improvements in reductions better than others.

Lord Teverson: I sympathise with the noble Lord. There are two separate points here: one concerns measurement and the other concerns trading. The two are related but are not the same thing. I will come on to this point on Amendment No. 8, but the whole point is that trading systems allow that great efficiency for which we all wish. At the end of the day, how you measure a country's performance can be separate from that. It does not in any way stop trading taking place.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: This goes to the heart of one of the problems in taking a series of amendments in isolation from the others. Amendments have been tabled that propose that the target should be 80 per cent. This amendment says that these must be actual reductions in the UK without allowing for net trading to improve that. Another amendment proposes that there must be a defined limit to the amount of trading there can be. If you put all those together, and if that was the position that we wanted to advocate to every other country in the world to get support in international agreements, I have to tell the Committee that we would not get international agreement on any of those things. If you take one proposal in isolation, that is not too bad, but if you add up the thrust of the amendments from the Liberal Democrat side, there would be a very high reduction from the UK and you could have very little net trading at all. Then you would get a very tough regime, which would mean effectively that every country would adopt a stand-alone position. I suggest that is not a position that lends itself to getting international agreement.

Lord Rooker: My noble friend Lord Woolmer almost stole my central point, but it is a good point to make. The amendment would end our participation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme straight away, leaving aside everything else. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, shakes his head but the fact is that that is what it would mean. Amendment No. 6, as drafted, would be incredibly restrictive on our capacity to take action.
	In its report, the Joint Committee noted the concept of the net UK carbon account, and stated that therefore,
	the draft Bill represents an important development in the nature of UK targets for carbon reduction.
	Deleting the concept of the net UK carbon account would mean that emissions reductions supported by UK companies or the Government which took place outside the UK could not be counted towards our 2050 target. It is as simple as that. This would be the case regardless of whether these carbon units represented low-carbon investment in developing countries through the UN's Clean Development Mechanism, or whether they represented the efforts of UK companies to meet their targets under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme by trading with other companies elsewhere in the EUas they are allowed to do under EU law.
	Amendment No. 6 would therefore significantly increase the cost of meeting the 2050 target. Unless I have read my notes wrongand I would be happy to take advice on thatand I know that we are in 2007, and 2050 is 43 years away, but I have a figure in front of me of 5 billion more that would be needed to meet our target than would otherwise be the case. That is a lot of money in anyone's book. I understand the approach that was pleaded for at Second Reading, that we might start off being able to purchase and offset abroad but that we would gradually move away from that over a period of years. However, this amendment would not do that; far from it, it would go straight in. So it would straight away undermine the international approach to tackling climate change. That would not help anybody. It would not help the UK give a lead to other countries and the planet. We will meet our targets and we will ensureif I can use that wordthat the Secretary of State operates to meet them through both action to reduce UK emissions and action to support other countries in reducing their emissions. We need to do this in line with our EU and international obligations. That is by far the best way of doing it. We are strongly committed to the international principle set out in the Kyoto Protocol that the use of the international mechanisms should be supplemental to domestic action set out in the Kyoto Protocol.
	The concept of the net UK carbon account recognises that our targets can be met through both action at home and action overseas. We shall have other debates on this aspect but the narrowness, harshness and simplicity almost of the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is such that it is completely impractical and outwith what we seek to do. It constitutes a costly approach that would completely ruin all the arrangements that are in place, and will be put in place, for trading by UK companies to help us achieve this target. That is not in anybody's interests and I do not think that is what the noble Lord wants at the end of the day anyway.

Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister is quite right but I wanted to have this discussion. As regards leadership pretensions, the Bill will be thoroughly dissected by other countries and we need to be absolutely certain about which bit of ground we are standing on. To some people the relevant phrase will look like weakness, and we have to recognise that. I accept the practical realities of the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, is quite right; we certainly do not want to become isolated on this issue, and I had no intention that we should. But the other way of looking at thisif we qualified it a bitis that it would set a rather more severe and challenging 2050 target. One could perhaps come back with an amended amendment that would do that. However, it was important to have this discussion and I do not apologise for having it. Too many aspects of trading in carbon swaps and carbon offsets have, frankly, verged on the fraudulent. Even with the United Nations clean climate initiative, there are still large question marks over much of the trade that goes on because it is not a universally accepted standard and so there are very real difficulties with it.
	There was even a report in the Financial Times some months ago that the Chinese were thinking of bringing in a tax on the payments that investors in carbon saving technology were receiving because for some Chinese firms their income from these carbon offsets was greater than their income from anything else. I did not like the idea that we should make that sort of fiscal contribution to the Chinese Government. So the question of this international trade in carbon certificates needs very strong and internationally agreed controls. It does not yet have that. For so long as that is the situation we shall have trouble in this area.
	This has been an extremely useful discussion. I am very grateful to those Members of the Committee who took part in it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Teverson: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out 60% and insert 80%

Lord Teverson: We come to targets. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill was aware that the important thing at the end of the day is not to meet a 50, 60, 80 or 100 per cent carbon reduction by 2050 but to address the issue of all the tonnes of carbon that will be put into the atmosphere between now and 2050. That is what affects the climate, not meeting a 60 or 80 per cent carbon reduction by 2050. Although that issue is included in the Bill in terms of carbon budgets, it is very difficult to refer to thousands of tonnes of carbon being put into the atmosphere as a target within the Bill's objective.
	We agree that there should be targets but it is important that they should be realistic and that they fulfil the objectives of the legislation. I believe that the 60 per cent target was set by a Royal Commission some years ago. We are all aware that the climate change science and our understanding of how global warming works have progressed hugely since then, and, indeed, since the draft Bill was published earlier this year. The IPCC itself has said that to keep within the limit of 2 degrees centigrade on a global basis we shall probably have to reduce carbon emissions across all nations by some 50 per cent by 2050. We believe that to achieve a fair and equitable solution for developed nations that figure needs to be something in the order of 80 per cent.
	There are three ways of approaching the 60 per cent target in the Bill. Either we can decide to take out the target altogether and do what the Government suggest later in the Bill, which is to ask the committee to come back in a few monthsI cannot remember the timescaleto give us a scientific, authoritative, well considered litmus test, as it were, of what we believe the target should be, so that we can agree to that target in due course. Alternatively, we can stay with 60 per cent. Frankly, that is the worst option. Putting in what everyone accepts is the wrong figure would be wrong not only for the United Kingdom but also for our position globally. The third option is for us to put in the figure that we feel is, given that this is not an exact science, most realistic and most likely.
	We believe that 80 per cent is the right figure to put in the Bill. To back up my arguments, I quote two prominent Labour Party members. The first is the Prime Minister, who said in his 19 November speech that,
	the evidence now suggests that, as part of an international agreement, developed countries may have to reduce their emissions by up to 80 per cent.
	The other is the Mayor of London, who,
	supports an amendment to the Bill to reflect the 80 per cent 2050 target at the very outset.
	We believe that it is important to have a target. That target needs to be realistic and the best understanding at this time is that 80 per cent is such a target.
	The other concernthis is a correct theme of the Governmentis that the business community, which has to deliver a huge proportion of this commitment, has to have a degree of certainty. However, there is almost a guarantee of uncertainty in the 60 per cent target. Keeping a target until the Committee on Climate Change has been appointed, considered the evidence and come back within the time constraints would actually delay a decision. There is much greater certainty if we go for a realistic and a best figure now. Again, I applaud the Government's wish to lead globally on the targets, but that lead can be preserved only if we have a target of 80 per cent in the Bill now. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Much hangs on targets, but we do not see this amendment as relevant to the Bill's intended operation. Our position is that the Committee on Climate Change, not the politicians, should set the targets. We see the committee as being science-based; it should bring its scientific expertise to the task. The Bill, as the Minister emphasised, refers to a target of at least 60 per cent lower. We believe that the reduction may well prove to be higher than 60 per cent. We are all talking in this manner, but we are all aware that many NGOs are talking of an 80 per cent target. The Minister has told us that setting this target is an early task for the Committee on Climate Change. We believe that that target is best determined by the committee on the basis of the evidence and with its scientific evaluation. Our approach will lead to a more authoritative outcome, acceptable to Parliament and to the people of this country.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I was involved in quite an interesting debate on these matters yesterday evening with a number of colleagues. I left the meeting in the belief that we should set an 80 per cent target in the Bill, but I am now not altogether convinced that that is the right way to proceed. My view is that we should not refer to 60 per cent. It is a dangerous figure to put in the Bill. It would undermine the credibility of a Labour Government and it would send out the wrong message to NGOs. We have two options: either we put nothing in the Bill and leave it to the committee, or we put in a target of 80 per cent.
	I have consulted people in the trade unions on these matters. As my noble friend will know, the general view in the unionsparticularly Unison, with which I have talked at lengthis that a target of 80 per cent should be set. However, it might well be bestI take the view of the opposition Front Bench on thisto say nothing at this stage and leave it to the committee to decide. At the heart of my case is the belief that there should be no reference to 60 per cent. That figure is dangerous for our credibility.

Lord Jay of Ewelme: At the end of discussions in the Joint Committee, my view was that it was right to have a figure of at least 60 per cent in the Bill. However, I have come to the conclusion that circumstances have changed sufficiently, even since last summer, to make it right to include 80 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson said, the Prime Minister has already spoken of recognising that up to 80 per cent is likely to be the amount of reductions needed. We know that other countries are moving in that direction, too. France is considering legislation that would provide for emissions reductions of 75 to 80 per cent by 2050. The German Government have announced a legislative package incorporating cuts of 80 per cent by 2050. In the United States, two of the leading contenders for the presidential nomination, Senators Clinton and Obama, are talking in the same kind of figures.
	By sticking to 60 per cent, we will be behind what scienceand, indeed, politicsin this country sees as necessary and we will lack that degree of leadership that the Government have rightly taken in the past few years and which they rightly see this Bill as demonstrating again. Eighty per cent is a very ambitious figure, but ambition is what is needed, as we have seen recently in the science.
	There seem to be two options: leaving this to the committee to consider or writing 80 per cent into the Bill. If there were genuine uncertainty, there would be a strong case for leaving the matter for the committee to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested. However, it seems to me, as I say, that there has been a sufficient movement in both the science and the politics since June for it to be right now to replace the 60 per cent target with an 80 per cent target, both to achieve the goal of the emissions reductions that we need and to continue to show the leadership that the Government have commendably taken up to now and which, I hope, they will continue to take. I support this amendment.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I oppose the amendment. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to amend the figure. It provides that, when he does so, he must consider the scientific evidence and take the advice of the Committee on Climate Change. It does not provide that the committee should determine the figure. That is no doubt something that we will discuss later and noble Lords will not be surprised if I have a view about it.
	We are talking about deciding now that 80 per cent is the figure, when the target of at least 60 per cent was firmly based some years ago. Subsequent evidence should be carefully weighed up. The Bill makes provision for that to be done. In fact, it is an obligation on the Secretary of State to do so and to take the early advice of the independent committee. When all the stakeholders who are subsequently affected ask, Why is it 80 per cent and not 60 per cent?, the Secretary of State will be able to provide a coherent argument based on scientific evidence and the view of the independent committee. Then the stakeholders, whose behaviour has to change radically, will have the confidence and security that the basis is one that they can buy into. If the answer is that Parliament, having the Bill in front of it, said, We think 80 per cent is better; we will take a judgment by a vote on scientific evidence, that does not seem to me to be the way to get stakeholders to buy into and undertake the necessary change.
	I am confident that the way in which the Bill is framed is intended to allow the Government of the day to amend upwards, as it refers to at least 60 per cent. That can be done in the light of evidence, so that the stakeholderswho initially will largely be industry and, through that, consumers, although they may eventually, through personal allowances, be people more directlywill be able to feel that this was not about votes by different people about whether it should be 60 per cent or 80 per cent. That is not the basis on which to take people with us. Rather, people should feel that due process has been followed. I would be surprised if the figure is not revised upwards. This contribution is not intended to challenge or question that, but to ask how we get there and how we take people with us.

Lord Puttnam: I rise to follow precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and my noble friend Lord Woolmer said. Reluctantly, I oppose the amendment, but not because I do not think that this time next year the 80 per cent figure will have established itself as the norm. There is an additional argument in favour of keeping the Bill as it is. The most important thing that we focused on in the Joint Committee was the credibility of the Committee on Climate Change. It was absolutely fundamental to us that it should be independent, credible and listened to. I can think of no better way of achieving that than through the urgent first job of the committee being to review the process, review the figure, recommend 80 per cent and have 80 per cent accepted by the Government. That would establish that the Government, the Secretary of State and the committee were in lockstep, and it would establish the credibility of the committee. We would earn a lot more brownie points that way than we would by jumping on the bandwagon of 80 per cent, a figure with which I happen to have great sympathy.

The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: I fully understand what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, says, but if the figure of 60 per cent goes on being around and in the Bill, that opportunity will not be signalled in the way that it would be if no figures were to go in. I do not know what the Minister is going to say in response to this amendment. He may want to resist it, as he wants to resist most things that are tried at this stage.
	The suggestion that we might do better not to have a figure at all puts the onus on the committee more forcefully than having a figure that I have not heard anyone defend. We should not be putting into the Bill at the next stage a figure that none of us thinks is realistic or wants to defend, just because it happens to be there. I hope that the Minister, in responding to the amendment, will say that he will take the figure out. If we just left it there, the signal that we would give to people who read the Bill as it goes through its processes here would be that we are not serious about attempting to up this percentage.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I would very much regret it if we lost any reference to a percentage target from the Bill. If the first clause read, It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least lower, it would be a pretty limp beginning to a pretty important Bill. Let us not lose a target. I personally accord with the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Woolmer, about the need to get that extra bit of work done to validate an increase in the target. A Bill that says that the carbon account should be at least 60 per cent lower gives us a backstop beyond which we cannot slide and sets us up well for a higher target, whatever that higher target is ultimately to be.

Lord Redesdale: I agree with the nature of the persuasive argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that the committee can get credibility by winning a victory that we know in advance it is going to have. Anyone who reads Hansard is not going to spot that this was set up in the first place

Lord Puttnam: Unfortunately, I am a Spurs supporter and we take any victory that we can get.

Lord Redesdale: The problem that I have in one respect, following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is that I believe that we should have targets, because that is what the Bill is about. We are saying categorically that we are reducing carbon by the amount that we have to come forward with. It is not a question of greenwashing. This is the purpose of the Bill and what everyone understands it to be. I would support the 80 per cent target because it is the figure that is generally accepted in the scientific community.
	If we are not as parliamentarians prepared to make the political decision that that is the way in which we are going to go, with the subsequent costs that there will be on industry, on individual freedoms and on the right to take a 5 flight to Bucharest for a stag weekend, or for any other reason, we are missing an opportunity to make a direct contribution of saying that this is the political will behind the Government. This is a brave Bill, and it says that we are looking towards that.
	In a phrase used at Second Reading, I am slightly worried that by saying that we will have the 60 per cent but will move on to the 80 per centI do not believe that anyone is really considering taking percentages out of the Billwe will transfer what should be a political decision on to a committee to make as a scientific decision. Everyone who has read the briefings will realise that 80 per cent is the scientific view. The Prime Minister mentioned in a speech that the Government are seriously considering taking 80 per cent as the baseline target. I very much hope that the Government will decide to do so, because it has been raised by the Prime Minister in a speech; obviously he has not said that it is a policy statement, but it is an aspirational target. As we all have come to agree that that is the very least that we can look at if we are to meet the objectives of the Bill, to pass it on to the committee would be an abdication of our responsibilities.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: Did the noble Lord imply that he might come forward later saying, at least 80 per cent?

Lord Redesdale: The problem with the science, if you believe what has been said over the past few years, is that the scientific community might come up with a higher figure than 80 per cent. I do not have a science degree; I have only a degree in archaeology. I personally thinkwell, I studied prehistoric Europe, and that tells us that within a few decades the land bridge between Britain and France was broken by water. If London happened to be in that area that was flooded, in the space of decades, we would have quite a lot to say about the increase in a couple of degrees or percentage targets. It is very easy to talk about this as if it does not have a great deal of meaning and will not have a great deal of effect within a few decades, but obviously it will.

Lord Rooker: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, partly gave the game away by saying what he personally thought and then going into the science. He said that he was not a scientist, but his personal view was that 80 per cent was involved and he was relying on the science. Around the Chamber, others have been wary of politicians making the change, because we need the scientists to do it. As I said earlier, we do not have the committee, but we will have.
	Opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, quoted Prime Minister, who said:
	But the evidence now suggests that as part of an international agreement developed countries may have to reduce their emissions by up to 80%.
	The noble Lord stopped there, but the quote continues:
	So we will put this evidence to the committee on climate change and ask it to advise us, as it begins to consider the first three five-year budgets, on whether our own domestic target should be tightened up to 80%.
	At the time I read that as the Prime Minister giving a lead and as being as near to extending an invitation by the new committee to make the adjustment as you could possible get, without saying that the personal view of a non-scientist is involved. It is best left to the committeenoble Lords have put the case for that. We admit that the 60 per cent target is an old one; it is seven years old. It is consistent with the European Council conclusions in March 2007, which called on developing countries to reduce their emissions by 60 to 80 per cent. The Bill says, at least 60% by 2050. The view of Stern was that developing countries needed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 per cent. There have been significant advances in science since the 60 per cent target was seteveryone admits that; the Government admit that, and the Prime Minister could not have been be clearer in his speech. We should wait for the Committee on Climate Change before deciding the appropriate target. We want a considered view, based on the best evidence, of the cost of changing from 60 to another figureI do not say 80 per cent, just another figure.
	There will be environmental, economic and social implications of changing the target and operating it. The implications need to be understood before a decision is taken; that is the role of the Climate Change Committee. There is no doubt that there will be economic costs. Stern says that the earlier these things are done, the cheaper it will be. We need to look at the effect of the rest of the world taking meaningful action on climate change; the Committee on Climate Change can do that. On the other hand, what would be the implications of including other greenhouse gases, if the UK was going it alone? We are dealing only with some of the greenhouse gases here. They are all defined in the Bill; we will come to them later on. Before we take a decision of this magnitude, it is important that we have a clear understanding. That view is shared by the two Front Benchers and, probably, the majority of those who have spoken. If there was a quick vote on Yes or no; what would you prefer?, the overwhelming majority would be clear: the figure would change. I say that as a non-scientist; our view is to wait for the committee to be set up on the basis of what the Prime Minister said.
	Using the legislation and a committee of international repute, we want to send the right signal to other countries about the way that we go about setting our targets. We are entitled as the legislature to do it, but we have to face the consequences. We should do it on the basis of a considered scientific view and come to Parliament on the basis of the best science, not on the basis of an amendment during the Bill's passage through Parliament. I am not knocking that, but we need a good science base, and an understanding of the economic and environmental considerations and consequences.

Lord Teverson: Can the Minister clarify whether the Government will take the 60 per cent out of the Bill and leave that for the Climate Change Committee, which is in the Bill anyway, to consider? Or will the 60 per cent figure be kept in? I understand why the Minister is saying that he does not want to go to 80, but is he saying that the figure is going to come out altogether or will it stay at 60?

Lord Rooker: I think that I am listening to what I said; that is the last thing that I am saying. I was not saying that we will take the 60 per cent figure out. At least 60 per cent has the scientific validity of a seven year-old targetan aspirationfrom the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. There is a good scientific base for that view. Work has been done, in some respects, into the economic and social consequences of that, which probably have not yet fully dawned on everybody, and we need to pursue that. I am not standing here, on behalf of the Government, accepting the suggestion from my noble friend that we take out any target and leave it all to the Climate Change Committee. Based on the evidence, that would be wrong; the target of 60 per cent is the absolute rock-bottom minimum.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I cannot see the benefit of leaving it in. What do we lose by removing the reference to 60 per cent? We gain credibility, because it points to the fact that we are going to accept a higher figure, but what do we lose?

Lord Rooker: We would lose a lot of credibility. My noble friend will be very isolated outside the House if he said that we should have no target and no figure. We have the scientific evidence for at least 60 per cent, although the evidence is seven years old and science has moved on since then. We have a procedure for changing the figure; that is, through the Climate Change Committee and the relevant legislative framework in the Bill. We would lose an awful lot if we took it out of the Bill, and we would send the wrong signals to other countries. It would be completely misunderstood if we did that and it would undermine the efforts being made in Bali as we speak. We want our targets to carry weight internationally. Obviously, we are likely to get that by using the best and most up-to-date science and the best cost-benefit analysis, so that we do not misunderstand the economics.
	There is widespread agreement across society that the changes are necessary and desirable. If the committee comes back with 80 per cent, we have to explain that the consequence is not just changing a figure from 60 to 80if that is the figure that it chooses. The economic and other consequences have to be sold to the wider society. There is no question that there would be substantial changes.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My noble friend talked about losing credibility internationally. The international community knows the figures. It knows that the 2 degrees figure does not stack up with 60. It will say that the Brits have got their figures wrong because the figures do not add up properly. How will we answer that in terms of credibility internationally?

Lord Rooker: I am sorry, I did not quite follow what my noble friend said. If we take the figure out we have no figure; we currently have a figure of at least 60 per cent. It is known publicly and internationally that the Prime Ministerthe leader of the Governmenthas already said that the new Committee on Climate Change will be asked, as its first operational task, along with setting the first budget, to see whether the figure should be changed in view of the scientific justification and the economic consequences that would result. It could not be clearer internationally that the Brits are on the move. That is the signal that will be sent. If we took the figure out, it would be sent the opposite way; we would be moving backwards. You would need a lot of spin to explain that one, and I am not good at spin. We agree with the Joint Committee that a credible way forward is to ask the Committee on Climate Change to look at all the evidence and come up with the right level for the 2050 target. The committee will have the independence and resources, the economic and scientific knowledge expertise to review it, and it will be asked to do so at the first available opportunity.

Lord Jay of Ewelme: When is that first opportunity likely to be? Given that other states with which we want to maintain credibility are moving rather more quickly towards an 80 per cent figure, does the Minister not think that, unless we have an 80 per cent figure one way or another, there is a risk that we will be catching up with them rather than leading them?

Lord Rooker: I understand that we shall have a debate on that very point after the dinner break. I can pontificate because I roughly know the planned timetable for the Billto get Royal Assent in the spring. That is the objective; it has to go through the other House, of course. Before then, the climate change committee will be set up in shadow formthe chair and the membersbut until the Bill gets Royal Assent, it will not have authority to start the operation. The secretariat has already been set up to serve the climate change committee, but we shall probably have a bit more detail on that on Amendment No. 10.

Lord Redesdale: We are leaving the matter up to the committee. If the committee says that 80 per cent is too low and we should go up to 95 per cent, how would the Government react?

Lord Rooker: Given what we have said about the committee and the way in which it will be put togetherits independence, and the fact that whatever it comes forward with will have economic and social consequences and a science baseit would be a rash Government who dismissed any of its suggestions out of hand.

Lord Teverson: I thank every noble Lord who has contributed to the debate; I found it most useful. The Minister said something towards the end that could be slightly dangerous, although he did not mean it that way. It was the idea that the Prime Minister had suggested 80 per cent, so there could be no greater indication to the climate change committee of what the figure need be. In a way, that is then almost the last number that we want the climate change committee to come up with, because its independence in the future would be seen as nothing. We might hope that it comes up with 81.75 per cent as the right number.
	More seriously, I made it clear when I moved the amendment that I was not saying that there was a perfect answer to deal with the issue in the Bill. The absolutely logical way was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam: that we take everything out, let the experts pontificatealthough we understand that this is an inexact science, let alone the subject of the UK's obligation within a broader, global analysisthe committee comes back and makes a technical recommendation, and the Government make a political decision on that technical evidence. As the Minister said, however, that takes the stuffing out of the Bill; it would look a weak Bill and would have to be changed in several areas.
	There has to be a number in the Bill. From these Benches, we are saying that rather than going with what is clearly a wrong number, we should note the scientific consensusif ever there were onethat the nearest round number is probably 80 per cent. That is why we suggested it. We do not say that it is perfect; we wish to find a way forward. Liberal Democrats would say that we should have a carbon-neutral economy by 2050, but we are trying to get consensus in the Committee on something that will work. We look forward to debates on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert
	(3) The 2050 target must be met by emissions reductions achieved within the UK.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The amendment returns us slightly to the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in his Amendment No. 6, but I am glad that we can have this debate again because we have just had a debate on the target. The point of my amendment is to flush out exactly how wobbly the target is, whether it is 60 or 80 per cent, given the amount of international credits that can be used when it comes to the UK's own emissions reduction. The draft regulatory impact assessment suggested that the UK's emissions might be reduced by just 40 per cent by 2050, given the use of all the international credits.
	Part of the point of the Bill, besides setting the targets, is to create two things. The first is certainty for business. How much can it invest? Are we driving Britain towards a low-carbon economy, and if so how fast? The second is the seriousness with which we will take behaviour change. Those two things are the key to the success of the Bill. If we aimed to achieve most of the target within the UK, that would be a clear signal to industry that emitting carbon would become increasingly expensive, because the Government will have to introduce extremely harsh policies to reduce emissions or they will miss the target. As the Bill is drafted, the unlimited potential for the use of carbon credits undermines both objectives of investment and behaviour change. I am looking, in the Minister's reply, for how he will create the atmosphere of certainty while allowing so much flexibility within the international trading scheme.
	I would not want to overplay the down side, however. In allowing emissions to be offset by carbon credits, the carbon price will be substantially reduced. In some ways, that is not a bad thing. The theory of emissions trading emphasises that a reduction of 1 tonne of greenhouse gases is equal anywhere in the world; we all accept that. We have already heard today the argument that, instead of pursuing expensive reductions at home, it is cheaperI think that the Minister said 3 billion cheaperfor the Government to invest in projects that will reduce emissions abroad. Of course, on that side of the argument he did not state that, by creating a really low-carbon economy here and leading the technology, you are likely to arrive at a far higher figure in terms of net income to the UK, because we will be leading an economy that the world will be hungry for. He should balance his arguments in that way.
	We have talked about the principles of supplementarity, and I am sure that we shall return to those issues as we go through the Bill. The principles of supplementarity and differentiated responsibilities are enshrined in the UK commitments under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Those principles emphasise that developed countries are high emitters, historically, and that developing countries have a right to sustainable development. The developed world must take the lead by demonstrating that it can reduce emissions at home. There should be strong statements in the Bill. I have tabled amendments to make sure that the monitoring and assessing of how much of the target is met by foreign trading will be clear. As the Bill is drafted, it can be left opaque, which would be disgraceful. Unless we are clear on those issues, that will undermine two of the fundamental purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Puttnam: I would genuinely have liked to have supported the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on her amendment, particularly if it had been grouped with Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 111. On its own, I find it impossible. If it had included principally or some other form of words, perhaps I could have supported it. However, I support the principle of what she saidthat when we get to Amendments Nos. 25 and 27, that is the core of the credibility of the Bill. However, placed where it is, the amendment does not achieve its laudable aims.

Lord Teverson: I support the amendment. I want to be clear about what it does. It does not stop carbon trading from happening during that period at all; we will come to how much that should or should not happen later in the Bill. The amendment says that by the time you get to 31 December 2050 you must not only admit your carbon budgets but have bitten the bullet as an economy and decarbonised yourself, so that in that last spilt secondas it could be under the amendmentyou have reached a 60 per cent, or whatever, carbon reduction in the economy. You have not only gone through the carbon account process but have avoided hypocrisy, done the business and, at the end of the day, have actually delivered that percentage reduction yourself.
	The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, earlier raised whether that stops carbon trading. Of course it does not. I have gone through this several times in my own mind. It is a bit like measuring hospitals on outputs. You might measure surgeons' success rates or turnover of hospital bed usage, but that does not mean that you stop the hospitals doing all the other things they must do. It is just that you measure particular things because that is what you are trying to do. While you might be moving towards an actual 60 or 80 per cent decarbonised economy, on the way you have the EU ETS for which I am a strong missionary. All that still goes on, because individual businesses are trading under a cap-and-trade system, so that cap is coming down. All the advantages that we know of in trading systems, such as exiting the most costly areas first and making the best, least cost, benefits first, still happens. All of that economy still goes on; the amendment does not preclude it.
	What the amendment does so well is say that, at the end of the day, the UK economy itself must be decarbonised. The trajectory of getting to that can happen through trading. Even between now and 2050, you can still have trading which counts towards targets. At the end of the process, however, you must get to that saving. That is why the amendment is particularly strong.
	I can see that I am losing the attention of the Committee, so I shall sit down.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I take up the noble Lord's point. I am pleased that he is supportive of carbon trading until 2050. It is absolutely certain that if the amendment is passed, in 2050 it will be killed stone dead. Buying carbon credits would have no value whatever to a UK business because it would not offset anything. That is exactly what would happen.
	If all the European Union and major industrialised countries were persuaded of that, India, China and other countries, having got a lot of benefit from investment in helping them to reduce emissions, would suddenly find that, by law, companies in this country would have no incentive to invest in carbon emissions reductions there. The noble Lord says in support of the proposal that he is in favour of emissions trading now, but there will on balance come a time where that will not be of any value. Carbon trading, after all, takes place only because it has value. Under this proposal, in 2050, it would have no value to a business in this country. We have a made a great point about this being a leader in helping international negotiations but we will be giving a message to the countries that might need investment that, come 2050, it will stop.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness made a point about the impact assessment. I have had a note to that effect. I will obviously do as much as I can to assist in the next stage anyway, so if issues arise I will do my best to answer them. But the impact assessment did not say that we would reduce UK emissions only by 40 per cent. It simply looked at the cost of preventing the use of international credits. As an illustration, it estimated that allowing some international trading could significantly reduce the costs of meeting the target. These were indicative estimates, not a statement of government policy.
	I am now bewildered because, for all practical purposes, the responses I have for Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are the same. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has just said, the practical effect of the amendments would be so significant that it would remove our ability to count the purchase of carbon units, whether through the emissions trading system or Kyoto Protocol, towards the 2050 target. So it would mean vastly increasing the cost of meeting that target.
	The idea that we carry on as we are and stop trading in 2050 is not practical. I am prepared to have the lawyers look at this, but I am talking about the effect of the amendment. I know that we are in Committee and one wants to probe the issue, but it would kill trading stone dead. That is the issue, and it would not wait until 2050 to happen. It would increase the cost of meeting the target by removing the option to trade. As we have already announced, the Committee on Climate Change is going to review that target, so we would prevent the UK from using any international credits and make that target more costly, which would be a real problem. As I have said before, our objective is to meet the targets under the Bill through both the action to reduce the UK emissions and supporting other countries in reducing theirs. We want that commitment of international supplementarity to be a reality.
	This is not a get out. I know that it has been said before, but it is worth making the point: environmentally, it does not matter where on the planet the reductions take place, so long as they are proper reductionsthat goes without saying. International reductions must be quite legitimate. It does not matter where they are, because a tonne of CO2 emitted anywhere is still going to be damaging. Emissions trading will work by allowing emissions to be reduced in the most cost-effective way. As I have said, our analysis of the costs of meeting the 2050 target concluded that emissions trading would allow us to meet our targets, and with the same environmental benefit, for 5 billionnot 3 billionless than otherwise. The analysis published by the European Commission on meeting Kyoto targets confirmed this, finding that the costs could be reduced by a third through emissions trading.
	Done properly, emissions trading is of course an important source of income for developing countries. That is internationally accepted and I have other figures that support that case. If the idea is to stop anything that does not work in the UKand that rules out the European Union as wellthen we must clearly say so in the amendment. If it is thought morally wrong to go trading, then it must be dealt with in another way altogether rather than making a case, as the noble Baroness did, of which the practical consequences are to rule out emissions trading full stop. That effect would not wait until 2050; that is my point and the advice I have got. It may be looked at again in later stages of the Bill, but that is the practical consequence of the amendment, or anything similar to it, being carried.

Lord Teverson: I have obviously been utterly ineffective in explaining this. One decides what to measure and businesses or industrynot governmentsmake decisions about whether to trade under an ETS. Governments set the cap through the Commission, through national allocation plans, and trading takes place. That can continue ad infinitum, whether this amendment has been accepted or not. The amendment determines what you count. The Government already have a purely UK emissions target without any trading and they will probably miss it. I think the target is 20 per cent carbon reduction by 2010. There is no difference between that being a target or that being law, but having that target does not stop the EU ETS happening now any more than the amendment would stop that happening in the future. It concerns what you measure, not what you have to do. Clearly, the EU ETS will continue and we hope it will be very successful in making carbon economies throughout Europe far more efficient, but it will not stop because you measure something that is different, just as the purely UK targets for carbon reductions, which allow no buying-in or buying-out, do not affect it either. They are exactly the same.

Lord Rooker: I am far from expert on this. On emissions trading, what does not count towards our UK target? The UK target is in placewhether it is 60 per cent or 80 per cent does not matter. The Secretary of State is duty bound to ensure that that takes place. So any business that wants to tradewhatever the costs, whatever the effectwould ensure that the trading would not count towards the UK targets.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Perhaps I can explain.

Lord Rooker: I shall give way when I have finished this point otherwise I will lose my train of thought. I am happy to give way, but I do not have to give way the instant the noble Baroness, or anyone else, stands. I shall finish the sentence then I will be happy to give way. I have no problem with that. Now I have lost my train of thought.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I wanted to help the Minister to understand. I accept that he has parliamentary counsel and that the wording of my amendment might be slightly wrong so that it means something slightly different from what I want it to mean. However, rather than the Minister spending time splitting hairs over the exact meaning of the amendment, I would rather he answered the substantive point about the investment certainty for UK low-carbon technologies and behaviour change, which I hope were the substantive points I made in speaking to the amendment.

Lord Rooker: The amendment would cause disruption to the pattern of business and investment. Their offsets from trading would not count towards the UK target. I emphasise the phrase the practical effect, which I have in front of meI am not splitting hairs over thisas the practical effect would be to stop trading straight away. The consequences of stopping would probably have a major impact on investments relating to creating a low-carbon economythe very point that the noble Baroness and I agree on. The point I made to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was that new, successful businesses, new investments, new assets and new resources will be created in this country as a result of these targets and that that would be put severely at risk because of the disruption of the practical effect of the amendment. That is the simple answer.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We are having this argument a second time. I find it slightly difficult to understand why there should be one rule for one amendment and a different rule for a different amendment, according to some minds. We need to recognise what the Minister is postulating as an end game when we get to 2050. As far as I can see there is no such thing as a completely carbon-neutral economy. Certain industries will still require fossil fuels to operate. The obvious category is the smelting industry, which reduces metal ores to basic metal. Coal is used there not as a fuel to produce heat but to produce a chemical reaction. The cement industry has the same problem. Those industries will continue to use coal whatever happens if we are to have a supply of the raw materials that we shall continue to need and, more importantly, the raw materials that will be needed on an ever-greater scale globally for population reasons, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. We may well find that, because of fuel density, aviation has to continue to use fossil fuels, and shipping may have to for similar reasons.
	We cannot conceive of being without any of those industries in a modern society if development is to move forward. There will be a base line requirement to use fossil fuels, about which we can do nothing, but that does not meanthis is where the Minister's argument fascinates methat we should not have trading. It might mean that our target should be more than 100 per cent. I think that is where the logic will take us in the end. Not only will we require to use fossil fuels but so will every other country. The developed world can gain a very real benefit through the trading scheme in investing in other countries so that their benefit in carbon-free development helps us to continue with these fundamental industries about which we will probably be able to do nothing. That is where we are heading. Those industries will be required in third-world countries which at present probably do not have them, or they may not have the raw materials. We could be looking at that end game and it could be that the 80 per cent target beyond 2050 will have to be stronger than that; it may finally become greater than 100 per cent for economies such as ours. That will not matter if one accepts that 20 or 30 per cent of what actually happens is as a result of trading. That is perfectly acceptable.

Lord Rooker: While the noble Lord was speaking I could not remember whether I had sat down or whether that was an intervention. I think I had sat down, but the noble Lord has invited me to answer. I am not qualified to postulate on the issues that he has raised. People may challenge what he says about the long-term reliance on fossil fuels. It is right that those industries need to survive, but the fuelling system may change. Fossil fuels may not be needed for aviation or for smelting operations. Some people may challenge that in the long termin 43 years. I am not qualified to respond to what the noble Lord has just said.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I accept that.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for his support at least for the spirit of the amendment. My noble friend Lord Teverson had the idea better than the Minister that this is a snapshot of where we should be by 2050. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, that if we still have a really healthy carbon trade in 2050, we shall have failed worldwide because we do not want that much carbon to be traded. Internationally, we must have low-carbon economies. Although I completely accept that some things will still be carbon-hungry, we will also have developed such things as carbon sinks and some of the exciting things that were expounded such as carbon-eating life forms.
	There is much to think about. The Minister said that the RIA was only an indicative estimate. I am not sure of the difference between an indicative estimate and actual figures. I was working from the best figures which were an indicative estimate. I hope that by Report we will be much clearer about what we mean by the UK target and how much of that will be achieved within the UK. The purpose of the amendment was to explore those very difficult issues. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 9 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: As it is dinner time, I beg to move that the House do now resume and suggest that the Committee does not begin again before 8.40 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Criminal Justice Act 2003: Sentencing

Lord Carlile of Berriew: asked Her Majesty's Government whether they have made an assessment of the arrangements for the imposition and parole review of sentences of imprisonment and detention for public protection imposed under Sections 225 and 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in that I am currently president of the Howard League for penal reform. My Question relates to sentences of imprisonment for public protection, or IPPs for short.
	Where,
	a person aged 18 or over is convicted of a serious offence
	that is, an offence carrying a penalty of 10 years or more
	and ... the court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him
	or her
	of further specified offences,
	the court is bound tomust being the word in the statute
	impose a sentence of imprisonment for public protection.
	That provision is in Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with a corresponding provision in Section 226 for those under 18 who are convicted in similar circumstances.
	The consequence of the IPP provision has been unpredicted, remains unpredictable and is shocking to many. There are no fewer than 153 serious offences specified as making a person eligible for an IPP. That may be contrasted with just 11 offences that bring into effect an automatic life sentence. The offences for an IPP range from manslaughter to all forms of sexual assault, affray, indecent exposure, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Court of Appeal has held that courts should presume that anyone convicted of one of those offences and who has previous convictions is dangerous, unless that conclusion would be unreasonable.
	We now have the unhappy spectacle of judges in Crown Courts, up and down the land, feeling obliged to pass sentences for public protection, yet saying in the same sentence that the person they are sentencing will not be considered for parole for a fixed period, which can be very low. My noble friend Lady Linklater may refer to this later. I hope that she will forgive me if I take a sentence from her speech, but I understand that there has been a case where the tariff was as low as 28 days.
	To the sentenced person, IPP sentences are not abstruse. They are plain sentences that are indistinguishable to the sentenced person from a sentence of life imprisonment. They have no fixed date for their release. They have a vague promise of parole being considered at a future date. Yet, day by day, in courts up and down this landI should add a further interest as a recorder of the Crown Courtjudges are telling lies. Judges do not like doing that, but I am afraid that is the Government's fault that judges are being forced to tell lies. Judges are, in effect, saying to sentenced persons that they are being sentenced to indefinite imprisonment while implying that their parole will be considered at the end of the tariff period. As I have said, that may be as low as 28 days. Yet almost no tariff periods have led to Parole Board consideration at the first opportunity as set out by the judge.
	If I sentence someone who is told that they have an IPP sentence with a first parole date in, say, two years' time, I knowbut the defendant cannot be toldthat there is no real likelihood of their parole being considered then. That has led to an unsatisfactory situation in the prisons. Indeed, it is estimated that, within a few years from now, there will be 25,000 prisoners serving indeterminate sentences. The result of that will be a massive logjam in the parole system, which could not conceivably be resolved if the present system continues.
	There have been a number of such recent cases in the High Court. In the case that was decided this year of the Queen, on the application of Wells and Walker, against the Parole Board and the Secretary for State for Justice, Lord Justice Laws described the system as shambolic. It is rare to find judges using such terms to describe part of the criminal justice system. Lord Justice Laws also said that,
	to the extent that a prisoner remains incarcerated after tariff expiry without any current and effective assessment of the danger he does or does not pose, his detention cannot in reason be justified. It is therefore unlawful.
	Following that judgment, the Government were granted a stay pending an urgent application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
	In another 2007 case, of the Queen, on the application of James, against the Secretary for State for Justice, Mr Justice Collinsanother extremely experienced administrative Lord Judgeruled that detention post-tariff is unlawful if there were no means by which dangerousness could be assessed. The court ruled that the person concerned should be released immediately, but in that case the order was also stayed pending a Court of Appeal hearing. Mr Justice Collins, again using uncharacteristic language for the judiciary, said:
	Because of the failings of the Government, a fairly large number of IPP prisoners are likely to be released if the Court of Appeal finds the detention unlawful.
	I welcome seeing the Minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in his place to answer on behalf of the Government. Your Lordships will know that he is almost always entirely reasonable, but it will not be sufficient for this debate if the noble Lord simply says, Well, the Government have appealed, so this may not happen after all. That is, chaos may not ensue. It is of course right that the Government have appealed. A distinguished Lord Justice taught me a simple adage at an early stage in my career: most appellants lose. It is likely that the Government will lose that appeal; in any event, even if they win it, the question will still remain and the chaos in the IPP system will continue.
	I have read the Carter report, which makes some modest suggestions. However, bestowing a minimum IPP tariff of two years will tickle the problem but not begin to resolve it. The figure of 25,000 IPP prisoners that I mentioned being a few years down the road might be 23,000, but in all common sense that is probably at least 20,000 more than expected and, certainly, 20,000 too many. My noble friend Lord Avebury, who cannot be present, has sent me particulars of a case involving a young offender in Her Majesty's Aylesbury young offender institution, who has passed his tariff period but is not able to qualify for consideration for parolebecause the courses that he must complete in order to be eligible are not available to him in the Aylesbury young offender institution. One is bound to ask oneself: what is that young person doing in a place where he cannot go through the courses that can give effect to the intention of the judge who sentenced him. What kind of a system is this?
	I could give the Minister a catalogue of several hundred such cases. Time does not permit, and I suspect that he is as well briefed as ever and is well aware of them.
	I would like to speak at length, although there is not time to do so, about other aspects of IPPs. There is no regime to deal with what happens to people who are sentenced to IPPs once they are considered for parole. They are given no guidance as to how assessments of dangerousness are made. They remain on licence for 10 years after their release, but in many cases a licence of 10 years, with all that goes with it, is a complete waste of public resources. There is an automatic 10-year licence period. Surely each person released should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
	This is a very serious position. It is what has led me and the Howard League to highlight it. I commend to noble Lords the Howard League's report, Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection. It is required reading to understand the problem and I hopeperhaps with confidencethat the Minister is at least aware of a summary of its contents.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for giving us the chance to debate this important matter and apologise in advance if I should seem to deviate slightly from the precise focus of his Question. Not for the first time, I find myself straying with some trepidation on to ground that is normally the preserve of the professionals, but I have felt strongly about this for some time, so here goes.
	As a layman, I have always understood that when the trial judge ponders the appropriate term of imprisonment for someone convicted of a serious crime, he takes into account the requirements of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation in order to determine the correct net sentenceby which I mean the actual time to be served net of remission. The judge then, in court, passes the appropriate gross sentence.
	In other words, if the judge thinks that five years actually behind bars is the punishment that best fits the crime in question, he passes a sentence of 10 years, of which one half will normally be remitted. In parentheses, I believe that 50 per cent remission is excessive and destroys public confidence and that the former remission of one-third should be restored, so that a gross sentence of only seven and one half years would be needed in that hypothetical case. We are heading further and further away from the principle of honesty in sentencing for which Mr Michael Howard called some years ago. However, I suppose that that is for another day.
	Returning to my hypothetical example, after five years, and provided that heor, occasionally, shehas not committed any further crime while in prison and has behaved reasonably well, he will have served in full the time deemed sufficient for the requirements of retribution, deterrence and, one hopes, rehabilitation, and should therefore be released. If he is none the less kept in prison, he is no longer being punished for what he has done but for what his past record suggests that he might do in future. In other words, he is de facto an internee, or someone held in preventive detention.
	There may perhaps be a case for selective internment or, if you prefer, preventive detention, for those previously convicted of serious violent crimes. I am not competent to judge. To some extent, that would be comparable to indefinite detention in Rampton or Broadmoor. However, if that is to continue, it should surely be described as such and not disguised as something else, as it is at present. Moreover, it should be widely debated and then, if in principle agreed to, properly codified by an Act of Parliament. Above all, I submit, anyone so detained after his set term of punishment has expired should be entitled to as many prison privileges and comforts as are consistent with the safety and security of the prison staff and the public. I very much doubt that that happens at the moment.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, there are already two speakers from these Benches this evening whose knowledge and experience far outstrip mine, so I hope that I can add something useful to the subject. I must apologise for the fact that I will be echoing quite a lot of what my noble friend Lord Carlile has already said, because the briefing from the Howard League is excellent.
	In this debate, we are talking about IPPs, whose name alone is enough to ring warning bells, and the experience of the use of them so far is giving further cause for concern. The word indeterminate would seem to mean something akin to at Her Majesty's Pleasure, which in turn means a sentence which can be one without end and might typically include those committed to secure hospitals such as Broadmoor because of extreme mental disturbance. Otherwise, in the absence of a capital punishment, the most severe sentence of all is a whole-life tariff, when people are sentenced to live out their lives in prisonwhich is still, mercifully, a small minority of the prison population, although we in this country have more people on whole-life tariffs than the whole of the rest of Europe.
	As we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Carlile, there are 11 offences that make a person eligible for an automatic life sentence, but these are normally set with time limits and a foreseeable end. In the case of an IPP, there are no fewer than 153 specified offences deemed to be very serious offences of a sexual or violent nature, normally carrying a penalty of 10 years or more. It would seem to be a classic and blatant case of net-widening when so many more offences can end in such an outcome as, or more serious than, a life sentence.
	Like a life sentence, IPPs involve a minimum prison term, after which a prisoner will be expected to undergo various behaviour management courses designed to reduce or eliminate the risk that he is seen to present and will then be released at the discretion of the Parole Board. That release is on licence under supervision for at least 10 years and after that only if the Parole Board considers it safe to set him free. That supervision could theoretically otherwise last for life.
	The presumption is that behaviour management courses of the kind done in a prison setting can produce a more law-abiding, less dangerous person once he gets out into the real world. The reality is that those courses are simply not available in the quantity necessary for those people to win their release. The Home Office has estimated that that would cost an extra 10 million. While the Ministry of Justice's budget is being cut and all related services are having to cut back on their budgets by at least 3 per cent year on year for the next five years, the likelihood of those courses becoming more available must be nil.
	That is completely unacceptable. First, that anybody of sound mind could be detainedpotentially indefinitelybecause of something that he might do in the future rather than what he has actually done must be wrong. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, there is a different category that such people could become, that of an internee, but that is not our starting point or where we expect to end. Secondly, it is a given among all who work in prisons that uncertainty about the future is one of the most destabilising situations that anyone could have to deal with, for prisoners and prison officers alike. Lastly, if the planning and resources are not there, imprisonment continues because of the failure of the Government to provide them, and not for any further fault.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has already flagged up, I have had a letter from a serving prisoner whose tariff was a mere 28 days but who was then unable to have a review by the Parole Board because the requisite service courses were simply not available to him. He has now served two years. He has recently been moved to a prison where there is a course and is hoping that he will be able to complete it in time for the next parole hearing. If not, he will have to wait another year. That is the only means by which he can demonstrate that he has changed and so win his releaseall that following a basic sentence of 28 days. That is not justice.
	We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that there has now been a series of High Court judgments that detention beyond the term of service is unlawful if prisoners sentenced to the IPP are not provided with the appropriate behaviour management courses and assessments, so that evidence can be presented to the Parole Board on whether they still present a risk. I understand that the Government are appealing the judgments. We will have to await the outcome.
	What are the guidelines accompanying the use of IPPs? As far as I am aware, the Sentencing Guidelines Council did not give advice on their application. I would like to ask the Minister what the role of the SGC was in the framing and application of IPPs and whether there was any modelling or serious projections made of their use before they were introduced. Did the Government expect the current, impossible situation in which we find ourselves today? Since April 2005, when IPPs became one of the available options to courts, there are now just under 3,000 prisoners serving these sentencesin just two years. Of them, 728 are under 21 years-old and very few have been released. Official estimates are that the IPP population will reach 25,000 by 2012almost a third of the entire prison population. As we have also heard, following Lord Carter's report, the Secretary of State for Justice has announced that the minimum tariff should be raised to two years, which is, at least, an acknowledgement that things are getting out of hand. We are left today with a situation in which people are sent to prison on an IPP, to serve a tariff, but only with the possibility of release once courses are donewhen courses are not available. Should they become available, then licence on supervision by community agenciesprincipally, presumably, the Probation Servicefor 10 years will be expected, by a service that is facing huge cuts on its already overstretched current budgets, let alone one with resources for such extra demands.
	One can conclude only that this initiative is fundamentally impractical, unsustainable and wrong. I sincerely hope that the Government will rethink all elements of what has turned out to be a practical and moral failure.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, Lord Justice Laws in the Court of Appeal case to which my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew has referred said that there had been,
	a general and systemic legal failure,
	in the treatment of the current 3,000 IPP prisoners. That is a disgrace. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that.
	In opening, my noble friend Lord Carlile said that these were unpredicted results. Indeed, I noted a Prison Reform Trust paper, published on 31 July of this year, which said:
	There was no significant debate about IPPs during the progress of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in parliament. So, it is hard to know exactly what the government's intention was in creating the sentence.
	As usual, people have looked at what was said in the Commons. If they debated it at all, I would be surprised. However, it was raised and discussed in your Lordships' House. In particular, on 14 October 2003, at col. 770, I referred to the high cost of the proposed method of dealing with people who had not been properly assessed. I said, first, that it required,
	a massive increase in the material required for the sentencing court,
	and, secondly, that there would be,
	submissions and argument in court about whether there is a sufficient risk of serious harm.
	We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the courts have a presumption that a person is dangerous, so it is on him to prove that he is not dangerous.
	I said that the scheme envisaged,
	a significant lengthening of terms of imprisonment,
	and that,
	the cost of extending the Parole Board and its bureaucracy to cope with what would be a massive increase in its workload,
	had not been assessed. I referred to:
	The cost of supervising licensespresumably by the probation serviceof those released,
	and I asked where the money was coming from,
	to pay for more court days, more judge time and the increased workload of defence and prosecution lawyers,
	and for the cost of building,
	new prisons to accommodate those prisoners who will be held for longer, to extend the Parole Board and to expand the probation service.
	I suggested that the only way that any money could be saved was by,
	cutting back on rehabilitation schemes.[Official Report, 14/10/03; col. 770.]
	I was supported by the much lamented Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who said it was a scandal and that the provisions would ratchet up sentencing everywhere. My noble friend Lord Carlile, Lord Ackner and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, all supported my points. What was the Government's response at that time? They said, It will be alright, don't worry about it.
	The first point that was made, I am sure in utmost good faith, by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, was that it was intended to reduce the pressure on prisons by allowing other people to go. There was to be a greater use of community service and community penaltiesin fact, we now know that community penalties and offenders fined, as a proportion of those convicted, have gone down, according to official figures last year.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that,
	by introducing these provisions, it is not the intention of the Government to accelerate or exacerbate the prison population.[Official Report, 14/10/03; col. 775.]
	That prison population then stood at 72,000, or 10,000 less than it today.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said about rehabilitation,
	that the whole thrust of what we have done is to make it clear that every intervention with any individual who comes into contact with the criminal justice system has a meaning. From the moment a person first offends or first appears before the criminal justice service, he or she will have an intervention which will include an opportunity for rehabilitation, restoration and restitution.
	That is the basis of the Government's policy at that time. It is obvious that that policy has completely failed. The noble Baroness said that she appreciated that additional resources would be needed for probation and that, when offenders were released, they would have,
	a programme that would enable them to make the best use of their release and rehabilitation back into the community.[Official Report, 14/10/03; cols. 778-79.]
	When one realises the way in which this policy was first promulgated and the reasons that were then made, and then compares it with reality, it is clear that the Government have wholly failed in dealing with IPP sentences. Their policy is, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, that a person should be punished for what he might do. My noble friend Lady Linklater made the same point.
	There was a time when the criminal justice system was designed to discover who had committed a criminal offence and to punish him to give him his just deserts. It was hoped that in that process there would be the resources to assist him to rehabilitate himself. Instead, the Government now try to manage future risk possibilities that might occur in relation to individuals in the future. A culture is growing that has moved the criminal justice system away from punishing people for offences that they have committed to trying to control future behaviour, which can be seen in ASBOs, serious crime orders and all the stuff that comes out of the Home Office.
	If the Government, instead of trying to manage risk in this way, tackled problems on estates at their rootsas I seem to remember Mr Tony Blair did when he was the shadow Home Secretaryand put resources into the people on that estate rather than handing out ASBOs piecemeal to offenders, the criminal justice system might not have to carry this responsibility of avoiding risk and we might have less crime in our community. I wait with interest to hear what the Government have to say in response.

Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may start by offering a tiny bit of advice to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who expressed some doubt about whether these measures were debated much in the House of Commons when the 2003 Criminal Justice Bill went through. I did a little research today and I could not find much reference to it at all. The noble Lord may remember that discussion of the Bill was guillotined in another place in a manner that would have made Robespierre proud. Although I was not involvedmy noble friend Lady Anelay and others on these Benches were involved in that BillI remember that we had to put a certain amount of that Bill to right and had to discuss certain parts which were completely undiscussed in another place.
	Another small piece of advice I want to offer to the noble Lord, Lord ThomasI dare say that it is unnecessary because he will have picked this up over the years: it is always worth being fairly suspicious of a Minister when, in promoting a particular measure, he assures you that it will lead to great savings. I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that those great savings rarely appear in due course.
	We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for introducing this debate. I am only sorry that it is at this time and is taking place in such an empty House compared to, for example, the Question today on prisons when it was difficult for anyone to get into the Chamber because there was so much interest. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would like to come back to this at another time when we can debate it with slightly more people. Having said that, we obviously will return to this issue when we debate the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Following the Carter report which the Minister presented to us last week, he and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave us an assurance that they would bring forward various changes to IPPs and therefore would amend Sections 225 and 226 of the 2003 Act when that Bill comes before us. It might be that I want to reserve quite a lot of my fire for the debates that will no doubt take place. I imagine that Second Reading will be in January, with Committee and Report stages later in the year.
	Having said that, I have a number of questions for the noble Lord, to which I would be grateful for an answer. It is depressing that one of new Labour's flagship pieces of legislation is already being pulled apart. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, to which I referred, will make changes to the 2003 Act. I understand that other parts of the Act have not been implemented and that we now have a wholesale review of the use of indeterminate sentences for public protection. That is further indication that considerable amounts of criminal justice legislation coming out of the Home Office in the past few years have not been thought through as well as they should have been. As I have said, we live in hope that the new Ministry of Justice will manage a slightly better job. The Minister is smiling, but I do not know whether that is in desperation. We look forward to some improvement from the glory daysas we might put itof the Home Office.
	Given that there are only finite amounts of resource and an ever-growing prison population, even if the Government admit that they cannot predict exactly what figure it will grow to, we know that we will have an evermore over-crowded estate even with the new places being promised. Does that mean that it is even more likely that prisoners serving IPPs will find it increasingly difficult to access the courses they need in order to prove that they have been rehabilitated? The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned a prisoner in Aylesbury who could not get access to the appropriate courses and therefore could not be processed beyond the stage that he was in. We know also from evidence that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given to the justice committee in another place that 3 million more has been given to help prisoners access the courses that they need to aid their rehabilitation and thus their release.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
	If we have to put more in I shall consider that.
	Given that the head of the Public Protection Unit, Anthony Robson, is alleged to have said that it would cost the Government 10 millionthe figure quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklaterto fix the problem of delay, surely the need for more money is inevitable. I hope that the Minister will confirm this evening that that extra resource will be made available.
	It looks as though this is yet another clear example of the Government failing to plan for the future. The Minister will be aware that Sir Igor Judge has said that the Parole Board might need 100 judges to deal with the backlog and to meet the number coming through because of the numbers currently on these tariffs that will need to be assessed before release. Surely that problem did not creep up on the Government overnight, just as the problem of the appointment of new judges has not crept up on the Government overnight. The Government ought to be doing something to address those issues.
	Figures seem to indicate that something like half of all the sentences given for threats to kill, child sex offences, arson or sexual assaults resulted in a tariff of less than two years. If the Government press ahead with their plansand obviously this is something which we will debate in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill when it comes throughthese people will not be eligible for IPPs given that their sentence length will be below the threshold. Does the Minister accept that there is a reason why judges sentence people to IPPs? Judges might have problems with them but they are presumably sentencing to that because they feel those people to be dangerous. Why are the Government so keen to remove that power from the courts? Is it merely yet another attempt by the Government to reduce the numbers in prison and to reduce those numbers artificially so asI put it this way last week when debating something similarto massage the figures yet further downwards?
	We will have ample opportunity to debate these matters in what I hope will be a fuller House when the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill comes before us next year. In the mean time, I hope that the Government can consider these questions, particularly the questions of more money for the appropriate courses for those on IPPs, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of those questions tonight.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on securing this debate. We have been debating these issues for about a year, starting with the Mental Health Bill, which covered a number of very interesting issues connected with the criminal justice system, and it is a great pleasure for me to respond to his typically informative, assertive and very interesting contribution. We had 10 minutes for the Oral Question this morning as the Question on international waterways went rather quickly. That shows the scale of interest in prison issues. We will debate some of these matters in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill when it reaches your Lordships' House but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that a more considered debate on prison matters in general would be welcome. Subsequent to the Statement on the Carter review we had the Written Ministerial Statement on the Government's response to my noble friend Lady Corston's interesting report on women prisoners, so there is much to discuss.
	In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, it is important to set out the background to Sections 225 and 226 of the Criminal Justice Act. As many noble Lords will recall, these measures were introduced as a package of public protection sentences in response to cases where offenders who had previously been convicted of sexual or violent offences that were not sufficiently serious to keep them in prison for a great many years went on to commit graver offences. Ministers decided that further action had to be taken to enhance public protection to enable those who presented a real risk of serious harm to the public to be detained in prison until the risk had reduced sufficiently to make them safe to release. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in particular disagrees with that assessment. That is fair enough. I am sure we will debate it again and again, but it is important to set out the context in which the legislation was brought about. I do not need to go into great detail about what the law says because the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, set that out very clearly. However, I want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who talked about the glory days of the Home Office. Of course, he would know. There is a legitimate question about the number of Criminal Justice Bills that have been passed in the past 20 years. The reality is that there have been manymy reckoning is 68 Bills since 1997. I will not go into the reasons for that or ask the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to respond to me today on the previous Government's record. I will say, howeverand I will come back to this in a momentthat the recommendation by my noble friend Lord Carter of a structured sentencing framework is very important, and will be the subject of a working group led by a member of the judiciary, which I hope will provide a very helpful rational basis on which to consider criminal justice legislation and its interrelationship with penal policy in the future.
	As noble Lords have already remarked, 3,550 offenders have received an IPP sentence since that became available. Noble Lords have identified some of the real practical challenges that we face as a consequence of some of those sentences. I will come on to those in a moment. I have no doubt that many of those sentences were entirely appropriate, but we know from the comments made by senior judges and others that the framework imposed by the 2003 Act may have restricted judicial discretion unduly and resulted in sentences when a standard determinate sentence might have been fairer and more appropriate.
	Noble Lords have already referred to the lowest tariff of 28 days being imposed. I fully accept that it is very difficult to find a rationale for saying, on the one hand, that an offender has committed a crime that is so serious, and that he is so risky, that he could need to be locked up for the remainder of his life; and, on the other hand, that he could be released after 28 days. Even if that is a particularly stark example, there are plenty of other IPP sentences with relatively short tariffs, and I do not seek to run away from that at all. There is no doubt that one consequence is that the prison system has been struggling to treat IPP offenders as we envisaged when we drafted the legislation and as we wish offenders to be treated. It is true that we have not been able to offer offenders the level of sentence planning and access to behavioural programmes that we would have wished. In turn, that risks making it more difficult for offenders to satisfy the Parole Boardand I accept the comments made about the pressure on the Parole Boardthat they are a safe prospect for release. In turn, that means that the numbers in prison are further increased by the low release rate. I do not seek to underestimate the challenge that that poses.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, asked whether modelling was done. It was, and it would be fair to say that it was not far out in terms of the overall numbers. I would not underestimate the modelling expertise of the Home Office and now my department, having seen the modelling done by my old department, the Department of Health. These matters are difficult, but I am not unimpressed with the modelling that has been done.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the modelling done by the Home Office, as part of a policy that has completely failed, happens to be rather better than that of any other government department?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I did not say that at all. I said that modelling can be difficult, and that the actual numbers were not too far out. The short tariffs, which were not expected in the modelling, have caused the problem. I know that my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland discussed this, and responded in good faith in the way that was quoted.
	The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Thomas, in particular referred to the cases that my department has lost in the courts. We are now awaiting the results of the appeals. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, did not hold out much hope for the Government, but we will have to wait and see.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister might address this question in the few moments available. If the Government lose the appeals, which must be at least a 50:50 prospect, they will be forced to release prisoners who have reached their tariff period but who have not been assessed by the Parole Board. They will be released simply because they have reached that point in their sentence, whereas those who have been considered by the Parole Board and may have had a decision that is adverse to themthat they should stay in for longerwill be at a much greater disadvantage. What plans do the Government have to deal with this extraordinary position, which is now staring them in the face a few weeks away?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are now dealing with a lot of hypotheticals. We will have to see the outcome of the appeal and the nature of the ruling of the Appeal Court: the noble Lord would not expect me to say anything other than that. It is not as though we are putting our heads in the sand and doing nothing. The department is looking at contingency arrangements and operational changes. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has already referred to the interim measure of allocating a further 3 million in the current financial year to help prisons to complete assessments and move offenders on to relevant offending behaviour programmes. Clearly, we are also looking at the detailed operation of IPPs through an internal service review to see how we can streamline the process for assessing and managing IPP offenders.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, referred to a 3 per cent reduction in resources over five years. It is not as bad as that. It is a tough settlementagain, I do not seek to hide from thatof minus 1.7 per cent per year over the next three years. Within that, we have to improve the efficiency of the department. My noble friend Lord Carter has put forward some considered proposals about how we can drive more efficiency in the Prison Service.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, for the sake of clarity, I was referring in particular to the services available in the community. Certainly, the Probation Service is looking at cuts of the nature that I quoted, not the Prison Service.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying that, but I have to say that that is on the back of a considerable increase in real terms for the Probation Service since 1997. The figure that I have is a 70 per cent real-terms increase. Notwithstanding that, we clearly face a challenging position. However, we will obviously look at the resources very carefully.
	Over that period, we have seen considerable increases in the resources spent on prison healthcare as a result of the transfer of responsibility to the Department of Health and on offender learning. The picture is not wholly bleak. There are examples of real progress within the Prison Service in relation to rehabilitation.
	We will of course come soon to legislation. The report of my noble friend Lord Carter has clearly shown the way forward in introducing a minimum tariff of two years. We will introduce legislation to ensure that that happens. That will make a significant contribution to my noble friend's demand management proposals. I do not accept that this is a question of massaging the figures, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said. The report of my noble friend Lord Carter is quite clear. To meet the challenge of the prison population projections of around 96,000 places required by 2014, he suggests a combination of supply increase and demand management. The IPPs will make a significant contribution to demand management. That is not massaging the figures. It is a very sensible approach in the light of experience. Noble Lords have posed some of the issues and problems that we face with IPPs, which I readily accept that we have to meet. But these are proportionate responses to a major challenge.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred to what he described as unpredicted and unpredictable consequences as a result of the legislative changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said that this was unsustainable. The package of measures, the immediate changes to how the IPP system operates and the Carter proposalswhich we will seek to put into legislationwill have a significant impact.
	The Carter recommendation on a structured sentence framework offers a way of ensuring that there is a strong, transparent relationship between legislative policy, penal policy and resources, without in any way fettering the decisions of judges when they pass individual sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, commented on prisoners with mental health problems. I commend to noble Lords the review that has been jointly commissioned by my department and the Department of Health to look in particular at the problems of offenders with mental health or learning disabilities, to see how, in appropriate cases, they can be diverted from prison to other services, and the barriers to such diversion.
	The six happy months we spent debating mental health legislation taught me, if nothing else, the critical importance of dealing with the mental health problems of offenders. I hope that noble Lords, in taking forward what has undoubtedly been an extremely well informed debate tonight, will take the opportunity to contribute to the review by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley.
	I hope that noble Lords will understand from the few minutes that I have had that the Government take this matter seriously. We think it was right to pass legislation on the basis of public protection. Clearly there are some practical issues that we have to face; we are facing up to them. I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments tonight.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 8.40 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.37to 8.40 pm.]

Climate Change Bill [HL]

House again in Committee.

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Before Clause 2, insert the following new Clause
	Review by the Committee on Climate Change of the percentage specified in section 1(1)
	The Prime Minister must
	(a) as soon as possible after the passing of this Bill, consult the Committee on Climate Change as to whether the percentage specified in section 1(1) should be increased as a consequence of developments in scientific knowledge since June 2000 (the date of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 22nd Report, Energythe Changing Climate), and (b) lay before Parliament the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change, together with a statement of the Government's response.

The Earl of Caithness: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I wish to move Amendment No. 10. In view of what the Minister said on Amendment No. 7 regarding the Prime Minister's commitment, I hope that he will be able to accept this very straightforward amendment. I beg to move.

Earl Cathcart: Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 seek to achieve a very similar objective. Amendment No. 11 would set a duty on the committee within six months of its constitution to propose a new 2050 target for approval by Parliament. If it is so approved, the Secretary of State must make an order under Clause 2 to amend the 2050 target.
	We believe that setting the target is a scientific problem, or more aptly it is a problem that can be properly assessed only in scientific terms. It should not be a political issue. We discussed setting the target under Amendment No. 7, and what the right answer should be. We have all read about the 80 per cent target and we all know that 60 per cent is not the right answer. As has been mentioned, the Germans have achieved an 80 per cent target. The Norwegians have achieved a 100 per cent target. France has achieved a 75 per cent target. So who is right? I do not have a view on who is right, and I would not even like to stab a guess. I am not a scientist and I have not seen all the evidence. I suspect that some noble Lords might have seen some of it but they certainly will not have seen all the evidence. That is why we think that setting the target is best left to the committee, when it has looked at all the evidence.
	When Amendment No. 7 was discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, who is not in his place, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, argued that the target ought to be set by the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said that letting the committee set it would give the committee credibility. I go further: it would give credibility not just to the committee but to the percentage chosen through the fact that it was chosen by an independent committee of experts. If the target were set by the committee, there would be no question of this House picking a percentage out of a hat. We certainly could not then be accused of choosing a figure for political expediency.
	This is also a question of public confidence. It is important that the public should have confidence in this and not see it as a political issue. In order for the Bill to be effective, the public will have to make a concerted effort; if they are to be compelled into action, they need to be able to trust that the targets are absolutely authoritative. That will be achieved by having an independent expert body setting the targets. Our amendment will give this task to the committee and it will achieve that.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I am delighted to have the opportunity to join in during the Committee stage, albeit having waited until after dinner to do so. I hope that I can follow my noble friend Lord Rooker in his responsive and discursive style.
	I start off by saying that we want to think about these amendments. The Government recognise the significant recent advances in scientific understanding since the 60 per cent target was set, as has been discussed at length today. As the Prime Minister has stated, the evidence now suggests that developed countries may have to reduce their emissions by as much as 80 per cent if we are to have an effective international agreement that will tackle climate change. That is why we have announced that we will ask the Committee on Climate Change to report on whether the 2050 target should be tightened up to 80 per cent.
	The Government are committed to ensuring that that review takes place. We have already begun to put the committee's shadow secretariat in place and to recruit a chair and members of the shadow committee. That means that the committee's work on reviewing the target can begin quickly, alongside its consideration of the first three budgets. I assure the noble Earl that matters are moving forward with great commitment and speed. Although I do not consider it necessary to make this review a statutory requirementas the Prime Minister has already announced it, it will take placeI recognise the strength of the arguments put forward this evening and am therefore willing to consider these amendments.
	I have a couple of points to make. First, on the question of timing raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, we are currently discussing a realistic timetable and the resources required for this review with the shadow secretariat to the Committee on Climate Change. We are talking about an independent secretariat so it is important that we understand its needs and concerns before discussing in your Lordships' House what the timetable would look like.
	Secondly, I would like to pick up on the question of who takes the decisions. In later debates in Committee, we will be discussing further whether the responsibility for decisions on targets and budgets should rest with the Committee on Climate Change. I understand the points made by the noble Lords oppositewhether responsibility should be with the committee, the Secretary of State or indeed the Prime Minister. We will come on to that. Putting those points aside, the Government are prepared to consider the question of the target being reviewed as a statutory requirement. With that, I hope that the noble Earl will consider withdrawing his amendment.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister; I knew that I was pushing at an open door. As she will recall, this was one of our recommendations from the committeerecommendation 8to which the Government gave a fairly warm response. I knew that the line would come out that it is not necessary to put it in the Bill because the Prime Minister has already announced it. I seem to remember repeating those words from the Dispatch Box many times. However, on this occasion it is worth putting this in the Bill, so we will come back to it another time. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking it away to think about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
	Clause 2 [Amendment of 2050 target or baseline year]:
	[Amendment No. 11A not moved.]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Clause 2, page 1, line 12, at end insert
	( ) Those powers may only be exercised
	(a) if a recommendation to make an order under this section is made by the Committee on Climate Change;(b) if the recommendation is approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament;and they must be exercised as soon as practicable after a recommendation is so approved.
	( ) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after the making of a recommendation by the Committee on Climate Change, lay the order before both Houses of Parliament and table a resolution for its approval.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am very reassured by the debate that we had on the previous amendment, because this amendment forms part and parcel of the same suite of amendments designed to reinforce the authority of the Committee on Climate Change. We believe in that and we are heartened to find that the Government have a similar objective in mind.
	The suite of amendments is designed to limit the power to make an order amending the 2050 target or the baseline year and transfer these powers to the Committee on Climate Change, subject to parliamentary approval. No order could be made without the recommendation of the committee and the approval of both Houses as part of the combination, but it must be made if those conditions are met. If the committee is made subject to the same limitations on the exercise of power, those should be the same as the Secretary of State would enjoy under the Bill. The detailed form of the order would still be left to the Secretary of State, so I hope that noble Lords can see that we are bringing the Committee on Climate Change into the process, with its approval necessary for something to come before us here in Parliament.
	This is about transferring power to the committee. A large tenet of our position on the Bill lies in this quarter. All the things that we have mentioned thus far apply to this set of amendments. Additionally, when changes are made to the baseline year or the targets, that would require parliamentary approval. That is a positive addition, because such a proposal would amount to a substantial change to the Bill. We want the Bill to live up to the importance that it deserves and such a change will reflect something dramatic enough to need the scrutiny of Parliament, especially as the outcome of the decision will affect every piece of legislation and policy. It is in the interests of the public and all parliamentarians to have any such change presented openly to both Houses. It is too big a change, with effects that are far too wide-ranging, for it simply to be made through an order.
	That reinforces the need for transparency. It is imperative that a change such as this cannot slip by unnoticed. Perhaps it would not, because there is usually an alert Member of this House keeping an eye open for these things. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State could simply amend the heart of the Bill without anyone really knowing. We need parliamentary approval to allow for public scrutiny, as well as scrutiny in Westminster, of the reasons for adjusting the targets and the baseline year. The Bill will affect everyone in its implementation. It needs to have the transparency and authority that will have public support throughout. We need consensus; we have consensus on so much on this Bill and we need consensus to change things in this way. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: I promise not to get into targets and trading during this brief intervention. I welcome the spirit of the Conservative amendments, which go a long way towards getting the right balance between meritocracy, parliamentary democracy and government accountability. I welcome the fact that we are not moving towards having something equivalent to the Monetary Policy Committee, where the sages and the wise people make their decision and that is it. There must be a strong element of parliamentary accountability, which I welcome. We on these Benches want to think more about the balance between the committee, Parliament and the Executive's duty to govern and to lead. Certainly, a number of the committee's roles need to be strengthened, but we will think further and come back on Report.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: Can the noble Lord clarify whether, when these powers are exercised, the order must reflect only what the committee says? The committee might recommend making an order, but the order could vary the burden of the recommendationthe percentage or whatever it happened to be. If, under the amendment, the order could reflect only what the committee recommended, the decision would effectively be made only by the committee, subject to Parliament; the Government would be a rubber stamp. The implications of some recommendations are potentially substantial. It is entirely possible that the Government of the day, notwithstanding a recommendation and following discussion and reflection, might bring forward an order that did not reflect precisely the committee's recommendation. The amendment is silent about that point, so it would be helpful if the noble Lord could illuminate it.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am happy to do so. Drafting these amendments is complex and the whole point of this stage of the Bill is to air ideas and to see to what extent we can strengthen the Bill with new ideas. The purpose of the amendment is to establish a triangular relationship between the Secretary of Statethe offices of government, which are the delivery agency for policyParliament, as the representative of the people's will, and the committee, as the provider of expertise. On the recommendation of the committee, and not without the recommendation of the committee, the Secretary of State can present an order to Parliament for approval. That is not to say that the order has to be exactly what the recommendation says, because, of those three agencies, in the end Parliament is sovereign.
	The process of initiating ideas and recommendations in particularly important fields should be transparent. If the Secretary of State brings forward an order that is not the same as the committee's recommendation, it should be clear that the Secretary of State is taking that responsibility at variance with the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that it is important to get this right. We believe that this is a reasonable balance. All of us who want this to be effective will want to get the balance right between government responsibility, parliamentary responsibility and the committee's responsibility. While that might not be explicit in our amendments, we surely should be able to make it so at some future date, or the Government might be able to present their own amendment along those lines.

Lord Rooker: The last comment of the noble Lord is useful because, if he thinks that that is the effect of the amendment, I should say that it is not. We now know what purpose he wants to effect. As it is drafted, the Government would have no discretion whatever. The only discretion that the Government would have would be not to bring the order to the House. If they brought an order, it would have to be from the recommendation of the committee, so the process would not be triangular. To be triangular, it would need another form of words. The analogy of the Monetary Policy Committee might look fair, but in terms of practicalities it is not a similar organisation; I will come back to that.
	I am not nit-picking about the amendments; for the next stage, it is useful for Members to know what I am about to say. The amendments would sub-contract effective, large-scale policy-making over a range of issuesnot just the dates, but the consequencesto the climate change committee. The changes would not just be simple. The committee is being set up as an independent expert bodythere is no question about thatbecause we want to manage the framework for emissions in a more transparent fashion that is more likely to deliver results. Clause 3 already requires, before amending the 2050 target or baseline year, that the Secretary of State must consult the committee as well as the devolved Administrations. Clause 2 already requires that any amendment to the target is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which means that it has to have strong parliamentary scrutiny.
	The amendment would require the Government to seek parliamentary approval twice, both in considering the committee's recommendation and when laying the relevant statutory instrument for the affirmative resolution. That is straightforward duplication. The key question that noble Lords have to ask themselves is whether it should ultimately be the responsibility of the Government, with parliamentary scrutiny, or of the Committee on Climate Change to take decisions on the way forward. Our view is that the decision should ultimately rest with the elected Government of the day, who will transfer over decades, subject to the strong parliamentary scrutiny in the Bill, which may be strengthened as it goes through Parliament. That is where the analogy with the Monetary Policy Committee divides. I am reliably informedI shall read this out, because I would not have said it if it were not written downthat,
	unlike the clear relationship between interest rates and inflation, CO2 emissions do not respond to one well-understood leverthe rate that reductions will occur depend on many different factors,
	such as changes in technology, processes,
	changes in energy demand, the energy and carbon intensity of the economy, multilateral action, the development of carbon markets.
	In other words, because the relationship between interest rates and inflation is so tied and precisethat seems to be the way it works; I am reliably informed about that, not being an economistthat is a narrow area where the Monetary Policy Committee can have executive authority.
	The complexities go far beyond that narrow area of the Monetary Policy Committee. If a Secretary of State, having consulted the climate change committee, came to Parliament with an order that varied from its transparent and open advice, he certainly would have to be accountable and explain in great detail why his decision, with which he is asking Parliament to agree, is different. That is crucial. I am with the noble Lord precisely on that. Frankly, I will be more than happy to look at that aspect of the matter because, judging by his speech, that is what he is searching for, but the amendments do not do that. From that point of view, it would be useful to look at that aspect again.
	We will have scientific advice, but, as the generations and decades go by and Parliaments and Governments come and go and international relationships probably change as well, there will be political judgments on this which must be subject to democratic scrutiny. Parliament is the place for that.
	It is worth putting it on the record that the Joint Committee looked at the issue. It concluded:
	Overall, the idea that the Climate Change Committee should have analogous powers to the MPC, while attractive, would probably be unworkable ... the wide range of the areas that the Committee on Climate Change must address would mean the Government
	and Parliament in that sense
	devolving significant policy decisions to an unelected body.
	That does not mean that we are building into this Bill the process for the Government to ignore the Committee on Climate Change; far from it. The Government must be absolutely accountable for what they do, and the committee must be transparent. The committee's advice will be highly influential and, as I said in an earlier debate, judging from what has been said in earlier debates it would be a brave Secretary of State who would come to Parliament with substantial variations from what the committee had recommended. If that were the case, they would have to explain that situation to Parliament and the court of public opinion, because we would have set up an independent body of world-class people who must be taken seriously. If that gets devalued, there are serious problems for the Government and Parliament.
	I need go no further. If the content of the second intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is what he is seeking, this does not accomplish it. I am happy to look at what he seeks to see whether we can bring something forward. In the mean time, he and his advisers can take account of the fact that, as drafted, the amendment does not create a triangular relationship. It creates a two-sided relationship with the Government out of it. It would be Parliament and the climate change committee, and the Government would have no role. It would be terrible if the Government disagreed so much that they brought an order to have it voted down or did not bring an order at all. That would create a stalemate, which would do nobody any good.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am reassured by the Minister's comments. It will be worthwhile having a look at this before Report to see how we can build the authority of the committee into this triangular relationship. That is important. As the Bill stands, it does not give the Committee on Climate Change quite the integral role that we would like to see it play in the process. In the light of the Minister's comments, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 not moved.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 17:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause
	Statements of compatibility with Climate Change Act
	(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before the Second Reading of the Bill
	(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the principal aim of this Act (a statement of compatibility); or(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility, the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
	(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I continue on the same theme. This amendment is about the interaction of the Committee on Climate Change with the organs of government, namely parliamentary legislation: both Bills and orders. This idea, to give him credit, came from my noble friend Lord Cathcart, who I am sure was inspired by the fact that everything presented to the House carries the endorsement that the legislation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. We feel that all legislation should carry an imprimatur about the Climate Change Bill. The one thing that we must be able to drive through government is the notion that everything that government does must bear the obligations of government to the success of the Climate Change Bill in mind.
	This is an effort to ensure that it has a real and wide-ranging effect on all policy decisions. We know that our government departments will be bound to have to bear in mind elements of the Bill, but it is not enough simply to pass the Bill. One of the goals of the Bill is to change the attitude towards climate change when Ministers are making decisions. This seems to be in keeping with that. Indeed, it is the only mechanism that assures us that that will be the case. I hope that the Minister will not shy away from something like this. It places the Climate Change Billor the Act as it may becomeat the heart of government. It puts its position clearly on the face of all legislation. I believe that this is an important step towards establishing the policy of climate change as a priority of government across all departments and throughout all legislative activity.
	There may be some elements of legislation that are not compatible with climate change objectives. In such circumstances, it would be right and proper for anyone proposing such legislation to present a statement saying to what extent it was not compatible, why it was not possible for it to be compatible and what would be the consequences of the legislation on our climate change targets. That is not beyond the powers of Government, and it certainly guarantees that all government departments would take this seriously. I beg to move.

Earl Cathcart: Not surprisingly, I fully support the amendment. Kyoto, Bali, Stern, Al Gore, the World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth and all political parties acknowledge that climate change is the most important issue facing us. If that is the case and we are serious about reducing our emissions, all future legislation should be compatible with this Climate Change Bill. Currently, on the front of all legislation the Minister states that in his view the Bill in question is compatible with the Human Rights Act, and on the front of the Climate Change Bill it states that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has made such a statement.
	The amendment would make all Ministers think twice before introducing a new Bill. As my noble friend Lord Taylor has just said, this compatibility clause should cover other policies and proposals as well as Bills. The Prime Minister promised in his recent speech to the World Wildlife Fund that,
	Every new policy will be examined for its impact on carbon emissionsnot just those which reduce emissions, but those which increase them.
	I agree with him and support the amendment.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: In my extreme youth and later I worked with a series of politically correct local and health authorities. Presenting proposals to them became a bit of a grind, as one had to list the compatibilities: diversity, disability, efficiency, the Welsh language and whether there was an R in the month. One ended up with a pile of bland assurances that things were compatible. That might lead me to think that this was not a good amendment, but I think it is a rather fine amendment. I wish that I had thought of it. It would be an extremely useful discipline in this incredibly important subject. Everyone would have to pause for thought before bringing legislation forward to consider whether it would take climate change and carbon reduction forward. In reality, the hill that we have to climb is so big that, unless every measure that we enact for the future takes climate change impacts into account, we will not get there. Despite 30 years of political correctness, I think this is a fine amendment.

Lord Teverson: I also welcome the amendment. I was going to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, but I obviously have to congratulate the noble Earl instead. We should take this further, and, like the white goods that I buy in Curry's, we should have a bar at the bottom of each Bill, so that as it goes through it would be red to greenjust as we have now in the HIPs, or whatever that is. A little quantification of whether it is an 'A' Bill or a 'G' Bill in its carbon emissions would be excellent. An amendment in this style would add greatly to our legislative process.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Although we do not discuss the Finance Bill in this House, it would probably be a really interesting exercise to apply it to that.

Lord Rooker: That is probably a good reason why we should not discuss the Finance Bill in this House. This has been an interesting short debate. The package of amendments that we have just heard together requires, as a purpose, that the Minister makes a statement of compatibility on any future Bill on any topicit is incredibly wide and, as the noble Baroness has just pointed out, it would include finance legislationbefore Second Reading.
	Obviously, this compatibility practice only came in under the present Administration. It is taken quite seriously; it is not just a question of the statement appearing with my name as though I have done nothing. I get a note from the lawyers, as every Minister would, and I am required to sign a document before the Bill gets printed. In this House, I have not introduced that many Bills and therefore have not done it many times, but this note is still required when they come from the other place. I have known examples over recent years, which I will not go into, where there has been a debate about particular Bills and the Ministers were concerned to seek extra advice about whether they were truly compatible with human rights legislation. In other words, it is taken extremely seriously in government, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has probably done the House a service in bringing it forward.
	That being said, the Government are sympathetic to the overall spirit of the amendment. No doubt, ambitious action will be required. I will give the Committee some reasons why it might not achieve that; I emphasise that it is in the way the amendment is drafted, covering every Bill on any topic. The Bill, as it exists, will help drive behaviour across Whitehallone of the points on which I rested my case in the earlier debatesand, certainly, put the Government's ambitions to cut emissions on a statutory footing.
	As I have repeatedly said, Ministers in all departments, not just the relevant department, will receive advice from their civil servants about their duty to abide by the law and to do what they can to meet the targets and budgets established under this Bill. In addition, we are required to set out the policy proposals for meeting carbon budgets each year and to respond to the Committee on Climate Change's annual progress report.
	Those requirements are all cross-government and will ensure that the Government are focused on what needs to be done to meet the targets and budgets, whether through primary legislation, regulation, expenditure policies or, indeed, executive action. There are, then, powerful incentives and further safeguards through the impact assessment process that all major policy statements must pass.
	Secondly, the relationship between the UK's targets and the level of global temperatures is highly uncertain. As I said earlier, the direct link between many of the issues is not precise, so it would be difficult to determine the impact of individual pieces of legislation. Because many aspects of society and living will be affected by attempts to meet the targets in the Bill, there will be difficulty for the lawyers in assessing any particular legislation. Everything would be covered by the need to make that kind of statement relating to the climate change targets, including legislation on housing, health, or on individual human relationships that have nothing to do with climate change, such as in marriage legislation. It would be incredibly complicated for lawyers to give advice on that, leaving aside the scientific uncertainty in some areas. I am not knocking that. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is probably not the only person in the Chamber who would have hoped that they would have thought of that. Frankly, it adds to the overall image and perception and the joining-up of government at no cost.
	Because of the way that the amendment is drafted, following the pattern of human rights legislationclearly, in opposition, you take a pattern that works, and this works on all legislationif we were to do it for every single topic covered by a Bill, we would come up against a real problem. It just cannot be done. As I said, I can think of many BillsI just thought of one, which is only about individual relationshipswhere making that kind of statement might be more difficult. However, it ought to be possible for a body of legislation, a range of legislation, to be covered by such a statement. I am happy to take the amendment away to take advice on it; I have no doubt that other colleagues will do so as well.
	I do not think that we can go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggests and put a coloured bar coding on it. On the proposal that Ministers in departments other than the lead department should be required on their legislation not just to take into account the legal duty required of government under the Bill but to sign a piece of paper to that effect before the Bill starts on its Parliamentary journey, I counsel against being precise about every piece of legislation. How you define legislation, I do not know. There are better brains than mine in the Parliamentary Counsel Office to consider that. The proposal certainly adds positively to the idea of the Bill being cross-government, upfront and transparent and with genuine extra accountability. I will be happy to look at it on that basis. That is three in a rowno more tonight.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am happy to hear what the Minister has to say; it is very encouraging. I have worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, on work and pensions legislation, and I understand that there may be some aspects of government activity that have little or no relevance, but that could be clearly stated. There could be a formula of words to deal with those matters.
	The Minister has a clear idea of the sort of thing that he believes might be important. The whole purpose of the provision is to ensure that future Secretaries of State have a certain amount of clout across Whitehall. I do not wish to embarrass the Minister by referring to something where he and I have a common interest: public procurement policy as it concerns British agricultural policy. We know how difficult it has been to get that accepted across Whitehall departments. I suspect that there may well be departments in Whitehall that will drag their feet over this Bill, and this is one way of making sure that they do not. That is why we are very much in favour of it.
	I am delighted to hear what the Minister has to say. Bearing in mind what he says, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 [Consultation on order amending 2050 target or baseline year]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Clause 3, page 2, line 34, at end insert
	( ) The Secretary of State must publish the advice of the Committee on Climate Change not later than one calendar month after receiving it.

The Duke of Montrose: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 42, 45, 98, 104 and 113.
	The Committee on Climate Change is intended to be the principal advisory body guiding the Government through a situation that is increasingly seen as critical to the survival of both the environment and mankind. It is quite reasonable that national authorities will require some time to consider that advice. It is, however, also quite reasonable that the Secretary of State should publish the advice given on aspects pivotal to the overall strategy. Publication means that both parties will present their cases aware that the work they do is open to inspection by all. This is particularly important in circumstances where other national authorities fail to make representations within the time limit set.
	The wording of the clause implies that the Government have some idea that other national authorities may not respond in time. Will the Minister explain why, in a matter so important as the alteration of either the baseline year or the 2050 target, a national authority might not make representations even if only to give its approval with reasons? Given that there may be a national authority that does not respond in time, the affirmative resolution procedure surely demands that Members of both Houses are as fully briefed as possible. We do not believe that this will be accomplished if the advice of the committee remains a matter solely for the Secretary of State and the other national authorities.
	Amendment No. 42 concerns setting or amending target percentages. Section 3 relates to amending the baseline year or the 2050 targets. The words used there, with the exception of specific section references, are repeated here. It is our opinion that amending the baseline or the end object is slightly more important than the intermediate targets. In both cases, however, we feel that the advice given by the Committee on Climate Change should be made public.
	Orders under Clauses 5 or 6 will be subject to affirmative procedure. For that to be effective the Members of both Houses should be in possession of as much information as possible. In order to enrich the debate they should also be in possession of the data, experience and opinion given by the many experts who take such care, in any field of endeavour, to inform their parliamentary representatives of all related matters.
	In the case of carbon targets the advice of the Committee on Climate Change will doubtless summarise scientific knowledge and practical experience in many related fields. That distillation must be available to us and to the public in general and it must be made available formally in order to avoid the distasteful business of leaks. This is serious business we are about and we must ensure that it is conducted carefully, with dignity and in a manner that generates confidence rather than ridicule.
	The other amendments in this group cover similar aspects of the Bill: that is, Clause 9 on consultation on carbon budgets; Clause 18 on alteration of budgetary periods; Clause 19 on targeted greenhouse gases; and Clause 23 on the procedure for regulations. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend's amendments, particularly Amendment No. 18. Clearly, when taking Bills through previously, one of the problems has always been the delay between information being gathered and going into the public domain. I hope that the Minister will respond to that. Even if the Government cannot accept one calendar month, perhaps they will look at it in a practical way and, if a month is too short, which I hope it is not, come up with an alternative timing. It is very important to have defined in the Bill that the Government have a responsibility to publish the advice given to the committee within a reasonable time.

Lord Jay of Ewelme: I, too, support the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 18. Perhaps the Minister will clarify one point. Would it be in order for the committee to decide to publish its advice at the time that it gives it or submits it to the Government? I notice that Schedule 1, on page 34, states:
	The Committee must publish the minutes of its meetings in such a manner as it considers appropriate.
	Presumably, it would therefore be perfectly okay for the committee to decide that it would publish its minutes and the advice that it gave to the Government with its minutes.
	Taking that point a little further, would the committee be in order if it decided, as was the case with the Food Standards Agency when it was first set up, to hold its meetings and to have its hearings in public, which did a huge amount to encourage and establish its independence and authority?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My noble friend commented at the end of the debate on the previous group of amendments that there had been three in a rowI am not sure he was right, because I think this might make number four. We are interested in considering the issues raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, in his opening remarks. He made a key point that this is a serious business, and we do not want to be in a position where there are leaks. It is essential that the committee operates in a transparent and timely fashion.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked whether it would be in order for the committee to make a decision to publish its own advice. As I understand it, that will be the case. The committee will be able to decide to publish its advice. My noble friend Lord Rooker reminded me that he was very much involved with the enabling powers of the Food Standards Agency to meet in public. He has an interest in ensuring that we learn the lessons from the experience of that agency.
	I will quickly pick up on a few points. The Committee on Climate Change and the devolved Administrations will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations. The public will be able to request information under those existing legislative provisions, although I understand that noble Lords are not driving at that point. The only exception would be where the information or data were commercially confidential or subject to exemptions, such as to allow for ongoing policy development. In such circumstances, it would be right not to publish the information until the risks of so doing had reduced to an acceptable level. In any case, I do not foresee the committee withholding its analysis where there was not a good reason for doing so.
	I fully appreciate the points about the timeliness of information being available, particularly with the devolved Administrations. We will give that further consideration and, bearing in mind the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, we will think carefully about how. We do not want to create an enormous burden on the Committee on Climate Change in sharing absolutely every piece of data and information, for everything it does will be about generating advice. However, we understand the need for transparency and for timeliness, so that the benefits of the enormous expertise and the vital work that the committee will undertake can be shared and made widely available to all those who care about the issues and could benefit further from that work. With those comments, I hope that the noble Duke will consider withdrawing the amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the two noble Lords who contributed to the debate and the noble Baroness for her reply. It was reassuring to hear that the committee would have powers to publish its reportsI suppose we are talking about the final reports, rather than the data and what have you that go towards building them up. If, as the noble Baroness said, there is a fairly good reason for withholding data, who dictates that and what is the fairly good reason? Could there be a set, maximum time between the report being lodged and the information still not made public? In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Carbon budgets]:
	[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Lord Teverson: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Clause 4, page 3, line 4, leave out five and insert three

Lord Teverson: I also speak to Amendment Nos. 21, 28, 147 and 148. I hope that this will be an opportunity for the Minister to have five pieces of good news in a row but we shall see. This is a very serious point and an important one. The length of budget periods is important to everybody in terms of business and planning. It is important to Government, Parliament and all the stakeholders in the climate change issue. We on these Benches believe that five years is too long. Why is it too long? Nearly all Administrations last four years or less; certainly they do not extend beyond five years. This means that we will not know whether any commitment entered into by a Government has been met until the next Administration or the next Parliament. We do not feel that that is healthy. It is not the right incentive and it will not be seen from the outside as being able to bring accountability.
	Much of this Bill concentrates on accountability and it is an area which a number of noble Lords want to strengthen. We believe that this is an area where there is a gap between intention and accountability. Also, psychologicallyI mentioned this at Second Reading so I will not go into it at any great lengthfive years for anybody is a long, long way off; certainly it is for us as individual human beings. I notice that that is not true for all noble Lords but at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, talked about hyperbolic discounting in terms of the future being discounted by individuals at a higher rate than the normal financial rate. We take decisions based on the short term. That is true for organisational planning. In the first year we think five years is a long way off and we normally do not get around to taking it seriously until at least year three. That is very dangerous because, as the Minister has reminded us several times this evening, the earlier and the quicker we take action, the less painful that action is. A five-year time horizon is too far away to concentrate minds and get action that will help carbon emissions and reduce future global warming. We feel that three years is much more suitable. There are other argumentssuch as the fact that spending reviews are around that period of time as wellbut if there are not interim targets or there are not interim milestones, a three-year period is even more important. Lastly, this is all about the business sector and others believing that there is real intent behind this Bill. I believe that that intent will be better reinforced over a shorter time period than a Government and a Parliament looking at what they want to achieve five years hence, which does not bring the urgency and the action needed by stakeholders in this whole climate change issue. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I suppose that, after Saturday and Arsenal's unbroken run, this is another occasion on which runs must be broken. I am afraid that we cannot support the amendment. I doubt whether it will find favour with the Minister, although I cannot be certain. Trying to foreshorten the period unnecessarily complicates the effective implementation of the Bill. We see no group of people who support this idea, and we simply do not think that it is a good idea to have too short a period.
	These emissions vary from year to year, and five years is a sufficiently long period in which to get the feel of things without it being too short a period to be blown off track by seasonal variations that may occur. It is no way to set up an alibi for failing to meet commitments. Having a shorter timeframe, while keeping it within one Government's term in office, might have a negative effect. If there were a boost in the shorter term of three years because of warmer weather, airline strikes or a power station closing, there could be a risk of thinking that improvements were being made when actually nothing was being done to tackle climate change. There is a mathematical reason why a short period can give much more unreliable data than a longer one. We therefore want five-year targets, which provide an opportunity to see success, combined with annual milestones, which we will discuss shortly, to track shorter-term progress.
	In practice, Ministers will soon start to recognise the variations throughout a budget period, which will be contained in one Government's time in office. It could therefore be dangerous if one allowed a shorter period. It is much more to our advantage to maintain the present five-year period, so I am afraid that we cannot support the amendment.

The Earl of Selborne: I do not suppose that the Minister needs any further urging to resist the amendment, but I would encourage him to do so, because the science of climate change is difficult and imprecise and is always subject to short-term fixes. Experts are always saying, Goodness, the evidence shows that we suddenly have anomalies, and a three-year database will quite clearly create further uncertainty. I therefore believe that my noble friend is right to say on this occasion that a five-year period is reasonable. It also, incidentally, chimes quite well with international agreements. The Kyoto agreement is on a five-year budget, and so for that matter is the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, so a five-year period makes perfect sense.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I, too, support what my noble friends Lord Taylor and Lord Selborne have said, for the slightly different reason that it is fundamental to the Bill that we take it outside the scope of the normal political timescale, which is electorally driven. Five years just about does it. It takes us beyond the normal time for which a Government will survive. Very few Governments survive to the last day when they must be elected; they normally go to three and a half, or to four and a half, years. I know we had one that didI shall say nothing about thatbut this will escape from that normal political cycle. That will be an immense strength, because Governments standing for election will have to recognise that there is a commitment for the future that must be met. There will be no excuse for attempting to argue that, because we have had an election, we can do something different. It might be possible to make adjustments in the following five-year cycle, but they will have to recognise in any election that commitments have been made with a view to the 42-year or 43-year timescale that we are working to. That is very important.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: May I agree with many of the recent comments of Members of the Committee and add one or two reasons? First, for many businesses, the idea that five years is a long time and three is appropriate is far from the truth. The overall targets that the committee will introduce will, I assume, be the result of building up a number of sectoral targets. In some sectors, to break down targets into three-year as opposed to five-year periods would be impossible. In the power-generating industry, to break down into a succession of three-year periods what will happen over 15 years is pie in the sky. The result would be that the committee would become discredited. The committee would set not only the overall target but a number of sectoral proposals. They are as important as the overall target because what does the target mean for different sectors and consumersthe people who actually buy the product? If time and again the three-year figure is not remotely met, very quickly, the series of three-year targets would be discredited. If when the committee is established it is asked whether it would prefer three five-year periods or five three-year periods, I have no doubt what the answer would be. The noble Lord should consider that point.
	I note from many of the remarks that the CBI briefing has been effectively referred to. We have to take industry and business with us and the advice of industry and business is in no doubt about this. I hope that, on this occasion, we can agree this on an all-party basis.
	Finally, on the question of three-year or five-year periods of the political cycle, the objective is to have all-party agreement and consensus. To build an argument around suggesting that if a government change everything might change or that someone will apportion blame is not helpful. In any case, even with three-year periods and four-year Governmentsthat has tended to be the caseit is perfectly possible that a new Government could come in and inherit a three-year cycle at the end of its first year and then, blow me, set another one in its second year and be out of office before the period ends. It is not a simple matter. To try to set the requirements of the Committee on Climate Change based on where it may fit into an electoral cycle is hopeless. If you were to ask the committee, it would say that the best thing to do is to ignore electoral cycles. There is food for thought there and I hope that the noble Lord will consider that, although this has been a useful debate, he will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I have a couple of brief points. I can see the importance of the budgetary periods, but it is hard to talk about this in terms of figures and numbers when it is so clear visually. When you look at the trajectory on a graph or a diagram, it is the pattern that the trajectory follows that is so interesting, not how long the period is. The provision will obviously have to be in the Bill, but we should not lose sight of what we are trying to realise in those budgetary periods and what line that trajectory is following.
	While I completely buy into the reason for having an independent committee on climate change, beyond the independence of the advice we should not get too carried away with this independence myth. It will be one political party or another that has to put into place the policies that achieved this. The decisions they make will be highly political and there will be some very hard choices to make. This happy land your Lordships sometimes talk about, where everything is independent and non-political, simply is not going to happen. That is a reality we have to face and the sooner we face it, the better.

Lord Redesdale: Although it seems that the three-year targets would be onerous on business, it is not as if the clock is reset every time you go back to the start of the budgetary period. In the sectorial targets that were mentioned you would be building on those things that have come before, especially in the energy industry. It would have to meet this. We should not underestimate the job that the Government are setting out. The task ahead is to make a 2 per cent cut, year on year, for the next 40 years, which is not a small amount to propose. My problem with a five-year period is the very real opportunity to put back the difficult decisions to the end of the period, especially for any Government that had just come in and were making up the policies.
	We have a major issue here. If we are to keep within the graph, we have the issue that there might be a particularly warm winter. We might have the same situation as last winter, when the spot price on gas meant that coal-fired power stations were pulled back on-line. There is nothing to say that, although we have had this great dash to gas, in a few years' time, with the nuclear stations coming off-line and gas prices going up because of external factors, coal-fired power stations will not be brought on-line to meet that need, and we would go into reverse on these targets. Therefore, to look at a five-year graph might be a problem. If we are talking about 40 years, in five years we are talking only about meeting eight targets. If we are talking about three years, there are 12 targets to meet, which can be met on an incremental basis.
	I quite understand the political aspect of the argument that perhaps we should leave it. In a number of Bills that I have dealt with, whenever anybody talked about something being on a five-year basis, in parliamentary terms, it was always on the understanding that it was never going to happen. If it was Lords reform for the next Parliament, it would be put into the next Parliament because it was never going to happen. Perhaps that is a cynical way of looking at it, but it is a very definite political way of looking at it.
	I have a question for the Minister. Has any analysis been done on how long the average Secretary of State has lasted in office over the past 40 years? If we are talking about the next 40 years it is quite possible that a Secretary of State will, in their period of office, see only one of these targets met on a three-year basis, if they are lucky. If you did the analysis, you would find that, even on a three-year basis, most Secretaries of State would not see even one. In some cases, they move on to greater things; in other cases, obviously, they just get fired or end up in your Lordships' House.
	Five years seems a short period of time, but it is based on building on the building blocks. Three years has merit. I am sure that this is an issue to come back to, because there is a political argument. If you think that another Government are going to have to pick up the pieces, will that make the difficult decisions easier or harder to take?

Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has provoked me into rising a second time, which is unusableI should have said unusual, but it is probably unusable toobut permissible in Committee. He implied that all we had to achieve was a target of 2 per cent per annum for 40 years and, bingo, we would be there. But it will not work like that. The climate change committee will have an enormously complex task.
	I suspect we shall find that initially the progress will be slow because so many things will have to be put in place. We are where we are and we have a difficult economy to control and seasonal and market factors come into play. However, I am fairly confident that the faster we go, the faster we will be able to go. Possibly, for the first year or two, the target ought to be 1 per cent only, or something of that order. If you look at the record of our energy consumption for the past 30 years, you will see that our energy efficiency has increased enormously, as has our output, and that our actual energy consumption has floated along more or less on a flat line graph. It is a very interesting graph which we need to consider much more deeply. Once we begin to change technology, which we shall have to do, the initial steps will be slow. However, once they begin to build, we will go quicker and quicker and in the later stages of our progress I suspect that we may well find that the climate change committee will say, Okay, we can go at 5 per cent per annum. That will be perfectly acceptable because the changes will be in motion. It certainly will not be a straight line graph and if anybody thinks that it will be, they are daydreaming.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: As Members on all sides of the Committee suspected, I can confirm that the Government resist these amendments. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, answered his own questions about the length of service of Secretaries of State, so I do not have to. However, I am sure that there is a website somewhere that would tell you that.
	As we heard, these amendments introduce annual targets within the budget system framework, which we do not consider is the right approach to take. It is worth recalling that each of the parliamentary committees that scrutinised the Bill agreed that binding annual targets were not suitable. We agree with this view and reiterate that

Lord Redesdale: I think that the noble Baroness is speaking to the wrong amendment.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: The noble Lord is absolutely right. I am terribly sorry. It was still a good speech though. I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, when he talked about annual reporting and accountability. He said that it would be possible for us to be completely unaware of the progress that was being made. That was one of his arguments for having shorter time periods.
	Within the Bill there are very strong annual reporting duties. Annual accountability through the committee's progress report to Parliament, and the Government's response to it, is an important part of this. This will help to ensure that there is a well informed public and parliamentary debate about the UK's progress towards the 2050 target and will help to create that visual trajectory which is important for people's understanding. We should not underestimate the strength of the reporting provisions in Clauses 28 and 29, which we shall debate later.
	It is extremely important that the budget setting period not only chimes with the needs of industry but chimes very much with the international environment. We are not just talking about achieving results on our own. We aim to achieve results in an international context.
	I shall read the debate and pick up any points that I have not responded to as, initially, I used the wrong note. However, Members on all sides of the Committee were very clear that the climate committee should advise on progress. We are not looking at three-year budget periods because of all the reasons that we have discussed. The five-year period is a good one. With that, I hope that noble Lords will consider withdrawing their amendments.

Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for all that information. Briefly, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, about the timeframe. Clearly for many industries, particularly those where we are looking for carbon savings, five years is no time at all. He was right to take me up on that. However, we are clearly saying that there should still be a 15-year setting of budgets, even though they are in smaller segments.
	The international argument does not actually work because there will almost certainly no longer be five-year periods post-2012. The intention, post-Kyoto, is for longer periods and therefore the five-year argument does not really work. Having said that, the carbon committee's accountability and strength in making reports, and Parliament's role in bringing the Government to account, are important parts of the equation. Within that total package, together with possible indicative targets and milestones, we will think about this area again. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]

Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at 10.01 pm.